Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business before Questions

Monken Hadley Common Bill

Bill, as amended, considered.
Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The President of COP26 was asked—

Climate Change: International Engagement

Stuart McDonald: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on increasing international engagement on climate change ahead of COP26.

Alok Sharma: I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues on COP26, including on co-ordinating our international engagement. The Prime Minister and Ministers across Government are raising climate change with international counterparts to secure ambitious climate commitments by November this year.

Stuart McDonald: Does the President agree that diplomatic efforts ahead of COP will need to be more than discussions with other states, and with non-state actors as well? What discussions is he having with non-governmental organisations—in particular, with the Under2 Coalition—ahead of COP, and what role does he envisage their playing in November?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We want this to be the most inclusive COP ever. As he will know, we have set up a civil society and youth advisory group, which is an opportunity for groups from the global south and the global north to come together and discuss issues. I can say to him that, ahead of the climate and development ministerial meeting we had on 31 March, we took a lot of feedback from this grouping in deciding what we needed to discuss.

Darren Jones: Many stake- holders that would normally engage at COP26—civil society groups, NGOs, politicians, business leaders—still do not have clarity about how they will engage at COP  in November. I understand the difficulties related to the pandemic, but can the President give the House an update today on when guidance will be provided to stakeholders about online versus offline and whether presence will be allowed in Glasgow?

Alok Sharma: I have always been clear, and I reiterated in a speech I gave in Glasgow with six months to go to COP, that we want this to be a physical event. That is the basis on which we are planning, and we are ensuring that we are exploring all measures to ensure this is covid- secure—safe for the people of Glasgow and, of course, safe for participants as well.

Deidre Brock: The recent G7 agreement on an international minimum corporation tax shows the significant progress that can be made at such forums. What can the President-designate tell us about the environmental Marshall plan the Prime Minister reportedly intends pursuing at the G7, and how will that impact on the discussions he is currently having with other countries in his capacity as COP President?

Alok Sharma: Matters related to what G7 leaders are discussing will of course come forward in the communiqué at the end of that process, and that is up to the Prime Minister and his fellow leaders. What I can tell the hon. Member is that we had a successful Climate and Environment Ministers meeting of the G7, which I co-chaired together with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In that meeting, we made commitments on overwhelmingly decarbonising power systems in the 2030s in the G7 countries, but also commitments on phasing out fossil fuel support overseas.

Climate Action and Green Recovery

Andrew Gwynne: What steps the Government are taking to promote climate action and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic ahead of COP26.

Matt Western: What steps the Government are taking to promote climate action and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic ahead of COP26.

Alok Sharma: The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan sets out our blueprint for a green industrial revolution. The plan invests in green technologies and industries. It leverages billions of pounds of private sector investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs and level up across the UK.

Andrew Gwynne: And that is very welcome, but building back better after covid cannot just apply to us here in the United Kingdom; there absolutely has to be a global approach. So is the President frustrated that the big emitters such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia have only resubmitted their previous climate pledges, and worse, that Brazil has backtracked on its climate pledge? What is he doing to convince them that meeting their fair share is important so that we can achieve the 45% reduction in emissions to keep our climate change within 1.5° C?

Alok Sharma: I would just say to the hon. Member that when the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net zero target; that is now 70%. All the G7 countries have committed to 2030 NDCs that are aligned with net zero by 2050. Of course, he is right that we want all countries, particularly the big emitters, to come forward with ambitious emissions reduction targets.

Matt Western: The credibility of the COP presidency rests on demonstrable climate change action at home. However, the decision by the Government back in 2015 to scrap the Labour Government’s zero carbon homes legislation has meant that we have lost 1 million zero carbon homes in the past five years. It is a simple question: why do this Government seem to want to allow non-zero carbon homes to continue to be built?

Alok Sharma: I would point out to the hon. Member that the UK is the country in the G20 that has decarbonised its economy fastest since the year 2000. He will know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working on a heat and housing decarbonisation strategy as well. That will come forward, and of course we will set out our net zero strategy ahead of COP26.

Engagement with North African Partners

Damien Moore: What steps he has taken to engage with international partners in north Africa on preparations for COP26.

Alok Sharma: First, can I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does as a trade envoy in north Africa? Of course, I and fellow Ministers speak to—and, indeed, our whole diplomatic network speaks to and engages with—Governments across the world, including in north Africa. In recent months, I have spoken to Ministers in a range of countries, including Morocco, Sudan and Egypt, which I visited in February.

Damien Moore: What plans are there to sustain engagement in this region in the forthcoming months?

Alok Sharma: We are working proactively with countries in the region through our COP26 energy transition council. We co-chair the adaptation action coalition with Egypt and we will continue to engage in north Africa, one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change.

Engagement with Sustainability Groups

Anthony Mangnall: What steps he is taking to engage with sustainability groups ahead of COP26.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Vice-President of COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Sustainability groups and wider civil society are essential partners to the UK presidency with their links to communities most impacted by climate change. That is why we have established the COP26 civil society and  youth advisory council, allowing a regular dialogue with those groups as we plan for COP26, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also launched this week the “Plant for our Planet” campaign to encourage all our constituents, and perhaps my hon. Friend, to think about the natural world and how we can live and work better within it.

Anthony Mangnall: May I ask the President, and indeed the Vice-President, of COP26 to engage with my constituents and the sustainability groups we have? It is incredibly welcome to hear the steps they are already taking, but we would really like to see a Devonian perspective on COP26 this year.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Well managed agriculture will be a critical contributor to our planet’s climate solutions, and the UK wishes to use its COP26 presidency to drive the global transition to sustainable agriculture and land use. We are committed to using our presidency platform to amplify local climate action, so I am delighted to hear about the activity being led in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and COP unit officials would be very happy to follow up and meet with them.

Philip Dunne: Devon is not the only area that is leading the way in developing community action plans, and indeed South Shropshire Climate Action has produced the first constituency-wide action plan, which I will be delighted to present both to the President and the Vice-President following this session. Will there be scope for such community groups that are leading the way in finding practical means for communities to help get to net zero to attend COP26 in Glasgow in order to spread this great practice?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We are really fortunate in the UK to have, as my right hon. Friend has demonstrated, a passionate civil society that is among the world leaders in climate action. The UK launched the domestic “Together for Our Planet” campaign to celebrate climate initiatives across the UK and to inspire the public—and clearly they are already inspired—to be more engaged in climate action in the run-up to COP26. So I would be delighted to receive further information on climate action from Ludlow, as well as any other constituency that wishes to submit it, because to be able to share that is absolutely what COP26 is all about.

Discussions with Welsh Government

Jonathan Edwards: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government in preparation for COP26.

Alok Sharma: We are working with the Welsh Government and indeed the other devolved Administrations to ensure an inclusive and ambitious summit for the whole of the UK. I have spoken with Welsh Government Ministers at the COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group, which I chair, and I look forward to speaking to Julie James, the Welsh Government’s new Minister for Climate Change, at the group’s next meeting, which is taking place tomorrow.

Jonathan Edwards: Offshore energy generation will have a vital role to play in achieving Wales’s energy, economic, decarbonisation and wellbeing goals, yet we  are operating at the moment with one hand tied behind our back, because the Crown Estate has sole responsibility for allowing development on the seabed. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Welsh Government about devolving the Crown estates in Wales to Wales, as is the case for Scotland, as part of the British Government’s COP26 legacy?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do of course talk to the devolved Administrations, but the role of the COP presidency is to ensure that we get consensus across 197 parties. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—the Vice-President, as she is now styled—is also the Energy Minister and the adaptation champion, and she will be very happy to discuss these matters with him.

Methane Emissions

Bob Neill: What progress the Government has made on raising international ambition to cut methane emissions in preparation for COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As incoming COP President, the UK is committed to reducing all greenhouse gas emissions and is encouraging all countries to raise their climate ambition in nationally determined contributions and long-term strategies ahead of COP26. The UK announced its NDC last December; it is an all-economy target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% on 1990 levels by 2030, and the UK’s sixth carbon budget will require UK greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 78% by 2035. The emissions scope of these targets does include methane.

Bob Neill: A lot of the debate and discussion focuses on reducing the carbon footprint. I am glad that the Minister includes methane; as she will know, over the course of 20 years, 1 tonne of methane will warm the atmosphere about 86 times more than 1 tonne of carbon. Given that the UN and Climate & Clean Air Coalition report demonstrates that we can nearly halve those emissions by 2030 by using existing technology, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will make securing commitments to reductions in methane a priority at the upcoming COP?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: In the UK, we are tackling methane emissions domestically by supporting the agriculture sector to reduce its emissions further through the agricultural transition plan. We have made good progress already to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, in our domestic agriculture sector. We produce a litre of milk with 17% less greenhouse gas emissions and a kilogram of pork with 40% less greenhouse gas emissions than in 1990. In our role as COP president, the UK has established a new international dialogue to raise international ambition on the transition to sustainable agriculture, with around 20 countries currently participating.

Recycling

Luke Evans: What steps he is taking to raise international ambition to increase recycling ahead of COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Government are introducing legislation to transform our environment, including measures to improve how we manage our resources and waste, through the Environment Bill. We continue to work with other countries to move towards a resource-efficient and circular economy.

Luke Evans: I am grateful for the Vice-President of COP26’s answer. I have had many conversations with passionate young people from schools around my patch— St Margaret’s School, St Martin’s School and South Charnwood School—who are dedicated to recycling. They wanted me to ask: will the Government consider asking for international targets on recycling rates to drive up recycling across the globe?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the schoolchildren in my own constituency are passionate and regularly communicate with me about reducing waste and reusing materials. The Government’s view is that taking action is the best way to drive progress, harnessing that consumer power to drive changes in packaging use in the goods that we all buy. Our children are the ones who are going to help all us parents across the country to drive that. Domestically, we are introducing the extended producer responsibility scheme to ensure that producers cover the full net cost recovery for packaging waste, and a deposit return scheme to increase the recycling of drinks containers. That will help us achieve a 65% recycling rate by 2035.

Biodiversity Increase

Chris Grayling: What steps he is taking through COP26 to help ensure that increased biodiversity is part of the international strategy to combat climate change.

Alok Sharma: Through the COP26 nature campaign, we are driving action to protect and restore forests and critical ecosystems, as well as helping to catalyse a sustainable transition of the agriculture sector and food systems through our forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogues.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he is doing. May I ask him to step up his work on ensuring that protecting ecosystems is part of the agreement that we hope will be reached at COP? I know that we have the summit in China, but the protection of habitats and ecosystems around the world is such an important part of dealing with climate change that I hope it will be part of the deal in the autumn. May I also ask him to put some pressure on the Brazilian Government over the measures that appear to be happening there that could accelerate, rather than reduce, the loss of the Amazon rainforest?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. He will know that the UK co-led the development of the leaders’ pledge for nature, which almost 90 leaders around the world have endorsed, committing to global action to protect nature. Of course, we are campaigning for strong biodiversity targets to be set at the biodiversity COP in Kunming this October. As he would expect, I am in contact with the Brazilian Government as well.

Bioeconomy: Research and Innovation

Rachael Maskell: What steps he is taking to promote investment in research and innovation in the bioeconomy ahead of COP26.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We are exploring opportunities for strengthened international collaboration on innovation focused on the bioeconomy through Mission Innovation, a global initiative to enable affordable clean energy and achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. Leveraging growth of the bioeconomy will support clean growth across multiple sectors and contribute towards achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Rachael Maskell: The climate crisis is turbocharged, as the trajectory of mitigation ever deviates from planet-saving targets while the Government move at a glacial pace to establish a climate economy. BioYorkshire will not only create 4,000 new jobs and upskill 25,000 people but lay the foundations for world-beating research in biosciences here in York and Yorkshire, offsetting carbon and waste. All we ask is for the Government to bring forward the funding already committed ahead of COP26. Will the Minister agree to do that and meet me to discuss the project and the importance of BioYorkshire?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I am always happy to meet new, interesting and innovative projects, and I am very happy to commit to doing that. We are absolutely leading the way on this. Mission Innovation is an extraordinary organisation, driving and shining a light on some of the most forward-thinking processes. One key challenge in helping developing countries move to clean growth is ensuring that the technologies that UK businesses and our scientists invent and take to market can be used in those developing countries.

UK Negotiating Team: Diversity and Inclusion

Virendra Sharma: What steps he has taken to champion diversity and inclusivity in the UK’s COP26 negotiating team.

Alok Sharma: The UK is committed to championing diversity and inclusion throughout our COP26 presidency. More than 45% of the senior management team in the COP26 unit are women, including our chief operating officer and communications director, and around half the COP26 negotiating team are women.

Virendra Sharma: Later this year, I am hosting the British South Asian youth summit, focusing on COP26. Will the Minister meet our youth champions to hear the perspective of young people living in some of the areas of the world that are most vulnerable to climate change?

Alok Sharma: As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the civil society and youth advisory group, co-chaired by two young climate activists, one from the global south and one from the global north, and on every visit that I do, I meet youth activists. Of  course, I am very happy to look at the event that the hon. Gentleman is talking about and, if my diary permits, I will certainly come to it.

Policy Objectives

Peter Bone: What his policy objectives are for COP26.

Alok Sharma: Our overarching objective is to keep within reach the target of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. To do that, we are asking countries to set out ambitious emissions reduction commitments, come forward with plans to protect communities and nature, mobilise finance and reach agreement on the outstanding elements of the Paris rulebook.

Peter Bone: Mr Speaker, you will remember when David Cameron was hugging huskies, and I thought it was a great idea to try to do something to save the planet, so I got rid of my polluting petrol car, bought a biofuel car and then discovered that I was destroying the rainforest. I knew what to do next: get carbon dioxide down and buy a diesel car; now I know that when I drive along the street I am poisoning people. Could the President of COP26 please give me some advice? Before I buy an electric car, will he assure me that the mining of cobalt and lithium is not killing people in the mines, or would it just be easier for me to buy a horse?

Alok Sharma: That would certainly be sustainable. I am really pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is indeed a climate activist at heart; it is a revelation for all of us. It is great that he has made a decision to purchase an electric vehicle. I can tell him that he will not be disappointed. Plug-in grants are available and he knows that the Government are also backing the sector with almost £3 billion-worth of support.

Matthew Pennycook: As the President of COP26 knows, the International Energy Agency latest world energy outlook makes it clear that a net zero pathway for global energy requires that there be no new fossil fuel supply beyond projects already committed to as of this year. That means not just coal, but oil and gas. The report reinforces the obvious need to secure agreement on a global framework for a managed and fair phase-out of fossil fuels. Will the President therefore tell the House whether he accepts the IEA’s conclusion and, if so, whether ending all new fossil fuel supply from next year will be incorporated into the objectives of the UK’s presidency of COP26?

Alok Sharma: I actually commissioned that report and I am very pleased that it is so substantive. The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to make sure that we help all countries with a clean energy transition, and that is what we are doing through the work of the COP26 Energy Transition Council.

Topical Questions

Robert Halfon: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: Two weeks ago, I chaired the G7 Climate and Environment Ministers track with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State  for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. At that meeting, the G7 nations agreed overwhelmingly to decarbonise their power systems in the 2030s, consistent with their 2030 nationally determined contributions and net zero commitments. In addition, they committed to take concrete steps to end support for international coal power generation by the end of 2021. This is a critical step in consigning coal power to history and accelerating the international transition to clean energy.

Robert Halfon: Of course we welcome plans for a cleaner, greener Britain, but can my right hon. Friend reassure my hard-working Harlow residents that the Government’s environmental measures will not mean a more expensive Britain, hitting the low-paid with extra costs and increasing the cost of living for ordinary folk?

Alok Sharma: The Government are committed to getting the transition to net zero right for all consumers. We are committed to driving savings and making our homes better insulated with more energy-efficient measures. My right hon. Friend will know that through the energy company obligation and the expanded warm home discount, we will provide at least £4.7 billion of extra support to low-income and vulnerable households between 2022 and 2026.

Ed Miliband: For a successful COP26, we have a particular responsibility as hosts to build trust with developing countries. The Government’s decision to cut aid spending—the only G7 country to do so—is therefore an appalling one, not just because it is wrong in principle, but because it is staggeringly self-defeating. The COP26 President knows that that decision makes a successful outcome at the conference of the parties harder, not easier, so may I invite him to add his voice to the powerful calls we heard yesterday, including from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to immediately restore Government aid spending to 0.7% of GDP?

Alok Sharma: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is doubling its international climate finance commitment to support developing countries; I can tell him that that has been very much welcomed around the world. With regard to the overall official development assistance spend, this is a temporary measure, as he knows. As the economic situation improves, I hope that it will be possible to restore the 0.7% target at the earliest opportunity.

Ed Miliband: The problem is that cutting aid spending severely undermines the ability of developing countries to tackle the challenges of climate poverty and public health. The COP26 President knows that: it is what developing countries are telling him in the negotiations. We need vulnerable countries to be calling for more ambition from big emitters such as China, but they will be much more reticent in doing so when they do not feel that we can be trusted.
Totemic on the issue of trust is the promise made at Copenhagen for $100 billion of public and private finance for developing countries. More than a decade on, it still has not been delivered. It is our job as hosts to deliver on that promise. Can the COP26 President therefore tell us whether the $100 billion will finally be delivered this weekend at the G7 meeting?

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the $100 billion is a totemic figure. We are doing everything we can to ensure that we are able to deliver it by COP26. I can assure him that I am having very frank discussions with donor countries—with developed countries —to ensure that they deliver on that commitment made in 2009.

Andrew Murrison: Does the COP presidency share my concern at the reputational hit that the UK will take in the event that it continues to approve old-style carbon-belching waste incinerators such as the one proposed at Westbury in my constituency?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: All energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency and must comply with the strict emissions limits set in legislation. I am aware that Northacre Renewable Energy Ltd has applied for an environmental permit from the Environment Agency to operate an incinerator in Westbury, Wiltshire, and the Environment Agency is considering responses to the public consultation.

Joanna Cherry: Some 11% of Scottish renewable generation comes from small projects such as Harlaw Hydro in my constituency. Ahead of COP26, will the Government introduce a replacement for the feed-in tariff that is better placed to encourage similar new projects than the smart export guarantee scheme?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We will be launching a new contract for difference auction at the end of this year. The opportunity for a number of smaller sources of energy storage will be available.

Marco Longhi: Will the COP26 President detail what steps he has taken to engage with the G7 ahead of COP26?

Alok Sharma: May I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing in Dudley on supporting the local economy and green jobs? As I set out earlier, I co-chaired the G7 climate and environment Ministers meeting, which came forward with some ambitious commitments.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The world is not currently on track to meet our Paris targets, is it? The current pledges only add up to less than 10% of emissions; we need 45% to meet the target. In the last parliamentary Session, 109 MPs signed the climate and ecological emergency Bill. When it is reintroduced, will the Government give time to debate it so that, as we did with the Climate Change Act 2008, we can lead the world on legislation, not just follow?

Alok Sharma: I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Leader of the House on the matter of the timetabling of the debates and other events in the House. I would also say to him that we are working very hard and pressing all the big emitters to ensure that they come forward with the ambition that is required to be able to halve emissions by 2030.

Beth Winter: I am currently doing a lot of work with people in my constituency on the climate agenda in preparation for the COP summit, and local schoolchildren and young people are particularly interested. One child in particular has asked me raise this question with the President of COP:
“To beat climate change we’ve got to look at it as one whole world. Surely this means giving more not less help to poorer countries to help them make the changes needed to save our planet?”

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) raised this issue with me, and I have set out the position on overseas aid. In terms of our schools, we are engaging, and I hope I will shortly be able to send out a pack that will encourage young people in our schools to get even more involved in COP26.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Gavin Newlands: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 June.

Boris Johnson: I am delighted that the UK is hosting the leaders of the world’s greatest democracies at the G7 summit in Cornwall this week. This is the first meeting between G7 leaders since the start of the pandemic. This week is Carers Week, and I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in thanking care workers and everyone caring for family, friends and loved ones. Their selflessness and devotion to helping others is an inspiration to us all. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Gavin Newlands: I very much echo the comments of the Prime Minister on the lot of unpaid carers. After plenty of warm words for the victims of fire and rehire, including from the Prime Minister himself, the Government yesterday announced their legislative response to the ACAS report, which is to do absolutely nothing. They will do nothing for the hundreds of thousands already threatened or, as the ACAS report points out, for the many more who are anticipated to face fire and rehire when the furlough scheme ends. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It is increasingly clear that this Government will not protect workers, so will they devolve employment law to Holyrood so that the Scottish Government can?

Boris Johnson: Actually, this Government have been absolutely clear that it is unacceptable to use the threat of firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic. We welcome the ACAS report, which finds that fire and rehire should be used only in limited circumstances, such as to prevent job losses, when other options have been exhausted. We have therefore asked ACAS to produce clearer guidance to help employers with other options.

Ben Bradley: We are on a mission in the east midlands to create 84,000 jobs for local people. We are legislating for planning powers for  our development corporation, which will work in tandem with our unique inland freeport. Decisions about HS2, and specifically the Toton hub, will have a huge impact on whether we can deliver on our vision for the east midlands. Will the Prime Minister meet me urgently, so that we can ensure we can deliver on that commitment to local people?

Boris Johnson: The east midlands could have no more fervent or effective a champion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vision for the east midlands freeport and all the benefits that rail integration will bring. I know that he is about to have a meeting with ministerial colleagues to determine how the integrated rail plan can work with HS2 best to achieve his objectives.

Keir Starmer: This is the first PMQs since the Prime Minister and Carrie got married, so may I offer my warm congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife and wish them a happy life together? I have to say that I admire the way they managed to keep it secret. I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Carers Week. I also send our deepest sympathies to the four people killed in Sunday’s terror attack in Canada. It was, as the Canadian Prime Minister said, an attack motivated by hatred and Islamophobia, and we must all unite against that at home and abroad. May I ask the Prime Minister to pass on our thoughts and condolences to the Canadian Prime Minister when he sees him later this week?
Why does the Prime Minister think that his now former education adviser, Kevan Collins, described the Government’s education plan as a “half-hearted approach” that
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”
and that
“does not come close to meeting the scale”
of what is needed?

Boris Johnson: First of all, I want to thank Kevan Collins for his work, but above all I want to thank pupils, parents and teachers for everything they have done throughout this pandemic. The struggle has been enormous and, in addition to the extra £14 billion we have committed—taking per pupil funding up to £4,000 in primary schools and up to £5,150 in secondary schools—we are now putting another £3 billion into educational catch-up with the biggest tutoring programme anywhere in the world, and it is based on the best evidence that we could find and that Sir Kevan could supply.

Keir Starmer: Let me get this right. In February, the Prime Minister appoints an expert to come up with a catch-up plan for education—a highly respected expert, who consults widely and comes up with a plan—and the Treasury baulks at it and says, “We’ll only provide 10%.” Yes, one tenth of what is needed. The Prime Minister, whatever he says, rolled over and children lose out. So much for levelling up.
Let me help the Prime Minister with the numbers. The funding he announced last week is about £50 per child per year. Even if you add in previous announcements, in England it is only £310 per child over four years. The US has a catch-up plan worth £1,600 per child, and in the Netherlands it is £2,500. So can the Prime Minister explain why, when he was told by the expert he appointed that only an ambitious, fully funded catch-up plan would do, he came up with something that, in the words of the same expert, is too small, too narrow and too slow?

Boris Johnson: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to catch up on his mathematics because, in addition to the £14 billion I have already mentioned, there was already another £1.5 billion of catch-up funding. This is a £3 billion catch-up plan, just for starters, and it includes the biggest programme of tuition—one-to-one, one-to-two, one-to-three tutorials—anywhere in the world.
We all know there are schools and classrooms in this country where children are getting private tuition, thanks to the hard work of their parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about levelling up. What we want to do is to get on the side of all the kids who do not have access to that tuition and to support them. That is what I mean by levelling up.

Keir Starmer: Who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding? He asked Kevan Collins to tell him what was necessary to catch up. Kevan Collins told him, and he said no. Who does he think he is kidding? The Chancellor’s decision—I assume it was the Chancellor’s decision; it always is—to hold back the investment that is needed is a completely false economy, as the long-term costs are likely to be at least £100 billion, and probably more. Who will be hardest hit? Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the Government do not change course, this will hold Britain back for a generation. Here is the difference between us and them: when Labour says education is our No. 1 priority, we mean it. That is why we published a bold £15 billion plan for every child to catch up on education, and we are putting it to a vote this afternoon. If the Prime Minister is really serious about this, he would back the motion. Will he do so?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I will tell you the difference between us and the party opposite: we put in the tough measures that are needed to give kids across the country a better education. When we rolled out the academies programme, which has driven up standards, who opposed it? They did. When we put in tough measures to ensure discipline in schools, they opposed it. At the last election, they even campaigned to get rid of Ofsted, which is so vital. [Interruption.] They did. He stood on a manifesto to get rid of Ofsted.
Will he now say that he supports not only our tuition programme but our radical programme to support teachers with better training? We are now putting in not only a starting salary for teachers of £30,000, which we have introduced, but another £400 million to support better training for teachers. That is what we are backing in our party. These are serious, costed reforms, based on evidence, unlike anything he is producing. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we have just a little less shouting? I remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister’s questions, and it is not about the agenda of the last general election. [Interruption.] Ofsted was not the question. I am not interested in what the Opposition put on the agenda; I am more interested in you answering the question.

Keir Starmer: Mr Speaker, let me take this very slowly for the Prime Minister. The Collins review, commissioned by the Government, was very clear: if the Collins proposed action is not taken, the attainment gap will rise by between 10% and 24%. That was on a slide shown to the  Prime Minister last week. He talks about the various measures, so let us look at this more closely. Which part of our plan—the plan being voted on this afternoon—does he oppose? Is it breakfast clubs for every child? Does he oppose that? Is it quality mental health support in every school? Does he oppose that? Is it more tutoring for every child who needs it? Does he oppose that? Or is it additional investment for children who have suffered the most? Which part of our plan does the Prime Minister object to? If he does not object to it and he agrees with it, why does he not vote for it?

Boris Johnson: With great respect, Mr Speaker, I do think I am entitled to draw attention to what the Labour party stood on at the last election. They have not yet repudiated it; they did want to get rid of Ofsted. But I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he is now saying that he supports our tutoring programme—that is what I understood from him just now—that is a good thing, because hitherto what has happened is that the kids of well-off parents, thanks to their hard work, have been able to rely on private tutoring. What the Government are now doing is coming in on the side of all the other kids who do not get access to that tutoring—6 million children will have access to tuition thanks to this programme. It is a fantastic thing; it is a revolution in education for this country. If he is now saying that he supports it, that is a good thing, although I have learnt in the course of the last year that his support can sometimes be evanescent.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister pretends he is here for the other kids. The report says that the attainment gap will go up by between 10% and 24% if the action is not taken, and he has just rejected it. How can he be on the side of the other kids? Come off it! We have been here before: free school meals—U-turn; exams fiasco—U-turn; and now catch-up. The Prime Minister has been all over the place when it comes to education, and he is on the wrong side of it again.
I now want to turn to this week’s G7, which will be the first major summit since the recovery. The UK needs to lead, not just to host. The priority must, of course, be a clear plan to vaccinate the world. As the delta variant shows, nobody is safe from this virus until everybody is safe. The Prime Minister has made big promises on this, but it needs a truly global effort to make it happen, so will he take the lead at the G7 and do whatever is necessary to make global vaccinations a reality?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. What the people of this country also understand is that not only were we able to give one of the first authorisations for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but, thanks to the deal the Government did between the Oxford scientists and AstraZeneca, we were able to ensure that one in three of the 1.5 billion doses that have been distributed around the world are the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That is global Britain in action, to say nothing of the billion vaccines that we hope to raise from the G7 this week.

Keir Starmer: That would sound a lot better if the Prime Minister was not the only G7 leader cutting his aid budget. I hear what he says about vaccines, but we also need clear global agreement and global funding. Hundreds of former leaders, businesses and development  groups have called for exactly that kind of leadership at the G7, and that is what we need to see from the Prime Minister this weekend. The G7, bilateral discussions with President Biden and the possibility of a new Government in Israel also provide a real chance to restart a meaningful middle east peace process. The appalling violence recently, which killed 63 children in Gaza and two children in Israel, shows just how urgent this is. For too many people in Palestine, the promise of an end to the occupation and a recognised sovereign Palestinian state feels more distant than ever, so will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this weekend to press for renewed international agreement to finally recognise the state of Palestine, alongside a safe and secure Israel; to stop the expansion of illegal settlements; and to get a meaningful peace process back up and running?

Boris Johnson: It has been a long-standing objective of this Government, and I think it is common ground across the House, that the solution for the middle east peace process is a two-state solution. We continue to press for that, and I have made that position plain in my conversations with both the Palestinian Authority and of course with Israel.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for failing to be sufficiently ambitious in our overseas aid spending—I think I heard him say that in that compendious question. [Interruption.] He is gesturing at the Government Benches. Under this Government we have spent more and continue to spend more than Labour ever did under Blair and under Brown, and even when they were spending money on Brazilian dancers in Hackney—which is what they did—to raise consciousness of global poverty. We are spending £10 billion a year at a time of acute financial difficulty for this country, and I think the British people know that that is the right priority for this country. If Labour Members want a vote on that matter, I remind them that the people of this country had an opportunity last month to vote on the way the Government were handling things and the balance that we were striking, and they adjudicated firmly in favour of the Government. The Opposition pontificate and prevaricate and procrastinate—

Lindsay Hoyle: Felicity Kendal, come on! [Laughter.] Buchan even!

Felicity Buchan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have made me slightly older.
I am proud of my Government’s record on the environment and the fact that we have cut emissions at the fastest rate of any G7 country. I welcome the fact that the Lancaster West estate in my constituency has benefited from a green grant of almost £20 million to decarbonise. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to build back better in a green way and in a way that levels up all parts of the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I do—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have committed a total of £3.8 billion to fund energy improvement in the performance of social rented homes in particular.

Ian Blackford: I am sure we are all looking forward to the European championships kicking off later this week. May I take  this opportunity to wish all the best to our country, Scotland —to Steve Clarke and the team—and to remind the team that it is time for heroes?
Later this week, the Prime Minister will walk into the G7 summit as the only leader who is cutting development aid to the world’s poorest. At the very moment when global leadership is needed more than ever, this Tory Government are walking away from millions still struggling from the covid pandemic and a poverty pandemic. The Prime Minister has been hiding on this issue for months. This is a Government on the run from their own moral and legal responsibilities and on the run from their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister cannot hide from this issue any longer and he cannot run from democracy in this House. Will he stand up today and commit to a straight vote in this House on his inhumane cuts, as demanded by the Speaker? Prime Minister, it is a very simple question: yes or no?

Boris Johnson: I wish all the very best to Scotland and England and all the home nations that may be playing—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to reciprocate, Mr Speaker, but you never know. It was worth a shot, I thought.

Ian Blackford: indicated assent.

Boris Johnson: Oh, he did. Good—that’s nice of him.
Anyway, the answer is clear: as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the people of this country were given a vote on this and many other matters very recently and they adjudicated very firmly in favour of the balance that the Government are striking. We are in very, very difficult financial times, but you should not believe the lefty propaganda, Mr Speaker, that you hear from those on the Opposition Benches. We are spending £10 billion overseas. We have actually increased—[Interruption.] All they want to do is run this country down when we have increased spending on girls’ education alone to half a billion pounds—almost half a billion pounds. That is a fantastic sum of money to be spending in difficult times and we should be proud.

Ian Blackford: I have to say that I do not think I ever heard the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), call the left propagandists. The simple fact of the matter is that every single party, every single Member of this House, stood on a manifesto commitment of 0.7%. The Prime Minister has reneged on that, and Mr Speaker has indicated that the Government should allow a vote on it. It is pretty basic stuff. After a year dealing with the deadly virus, why cannot the Prime Minister get this? In a pandemic, no one is safe until everyone is safe. Now is the time to support each other, not to walk away from those in need. People are dying and they need our help. The Prime Minister has the nerve to brag about the Government’s support for the vulnerable, and at the very same time he is slashing £4.5 billion from the world’s poorest. In the week of the G7, what kind of world leader washes their hands of responsibility by cutting water and hygiene projects by more than 80% in the middle of a pandemic?

Boris Johnson: I may say that I think that the last contribution was absolutely disgraceful. The people of this country have gone through a very difficult time.
We have had to spend £407 billion supporting jobs, families and livelihoods throughout the country, and yet we are continuing to support international vaccination. This country has contributed £1.6 billion to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and I think £548 million to COVAX. Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman of the statistic that I mentioned earlier. One in three of the vaccines being distributed around the world to the poorest and the neediest come from the Oxford-AstraZeneca supply, thanks to the deal that this Government did—or does the name “Oxford-AstraZeneca” continue to stick in his craw?

Scott Benton: I welcome plans outlined by the Education Secretary last week that will oversee a tutoring revolution in this country—a proven way to help the most disadvantaged children to catch up. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this is just one part of our wider plan to ensure that no child misses out as a consequence of the disruption caused by this pandemic?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, because the whole point of the tutoring programme is that it is evidence-based. Every tutoring programme—there are 6 million children who can benefit—is equivalent to three to five months of educational catch-up. We will also be looking at increasing time in schools. I hope that the loyal Opposition will use their influence with their paymasters in the teaching unions to encourage them in that objective.

Colum Eastwood: The Prime Minister knows full well that the best way to reduce checks in the Irish sea is make do a Swiss-style sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. So far, he has decided not to do that. Why is he prioritising cheap, dodgy beef from Australia over the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland and reducing checks in the Irish sea?

Boris Johnson: No, what we are prioritising is the right and the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to have access—as they should, freely and uninterruptedly —to goods and services from the whole of the UK, and we are working to ensure that we protect the territorial and economic integrity of our country. That is what matters.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Prime Minister’s excellent First Homes policy will allow tens of thousands of key workers and local first-time buyers to buy a home every year at a discount of up to 50% on the market price. Will he consider turbocharging that policy by establishing a national land commission to assemble public sector land to facilitate the development of potentially hundreds of thousands of more half-price homes so that more people can see the benefits of home ownership?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. Last year, in spite of the difficulties we faced, we delivered the highest number of new homes for over 30 years, but his point is an extremely good one. As all hon. Members know, we must find better, faster ways of releasing publicly owned land—brownfield sites—for development, and that is exactly why we are looking at the suggestion he makes.

Barry Sheerman: In his very first speech, the Prime Minister mentioned levelling up. My constituents want to know when it is going to start. I understand that he has lived a life of privilege and does not know much about the public, state sector; he knows a lot about the private sector in education. What are the markers for success? The fact of the matter is that the head of his own Industrial Strategy Council says that his levelling up, with these resources and with this management team, will not work and will not be successful, and my local Kirklees Council says it is so complex that nothing is flowing down to the grassroots. When will we see the first signs of genuine levelling up in our country?

Boris Johnson: What we are seeing across the country is people responding to massive investment— a £640 billion programme of investment in roads, in schools, in hospitals, in policing—that, bit by bit, is transforming people’s lives, hopes and opportunities. That is fundamentally the difference between the hon. Gentleman’s side of the argument and ours. We believe that there is talent, genius and flair around the whole country but opportunity is not evenly distributed. That is our ambition and that is what we are doing with our campaign for levelling up. If he is now saying, by the way, that he supports what we are doing on the tutoring revolution—because I know he is a great educational expert—then I am glad to hear it.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: My constituents in Bassetlaw have been the victims of illegal encampments, most recently at Farr Park in Worksop, where local taxpayers have been left with a clean-up bill running into thousands of pounds, and residents have been left feeling powerless following a sustained period of antisocial behaviour in the locality. Could the Prime Minister tell us what steps we are now taking to ensure that we stop this happening in the future and allow residents and local authorities to take back control of trespassing?

Boris Johnson: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know, introduces a new criminal offence where a person who resides or intends to reside on land in a vehicle without permission and has caused or is likely to cause significant damage or distress can face new penalties. Guess who voted against that Bill on a three-line Whip? Does anybody know? It was the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and his entire party.

Fabian Hamilton: A few years ago, one of my elderly constituents with late- stage dementia was married by a man who had befriended her. Upon her death, the man subsequently inherited the whole of her estate because under the law as it stands their marriage had revoked her previous will. Hundreds of people since then have contacted me citing similar experiences, but three Registrars General have refused to meet me to discuss it. So will the Prime Minister now act to bring this cruel exploitation to an end?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concern that he has and the injustice that  he mentions. I will make sure that he gets a meeting  as soon as possible with the relevant Minister in the Justice Department.

David Jones: According to newspaper reports, the European Union is unhappy with the negotiating style of the right hon. Lord Frost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in fact Lord Frost is doing a superb job negotiating in the national interest? Does he further agree with Lord Frost’s assessment that the Northern Ireland protocol, as currently applied, is unsustainable and that matters would be considerably easier if the European Union were to adopt a more pragmatic approach rather than the purist approach it is adopting at the moment?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend and I agree with him completely, because I think that David Frost—Lord Frost—is doing an outstanding job. I venture to say that he is the greatest Frost since the Great Frost of 1709 or whenever it was.

Andrew Gwynne: The Prime Minister has seen his adviser on ethics and standards resign over his failure to uphold the ministerial code, he has seen the head of the Government Legal Department resign over his failure to uphold international law, and he has seen his adviser on education catch-up resign over his failure to provide proper funding for children. Why does the Prime Minister think this keeps happening to him?

Boris Johnson: I am indebted to everybody who serves the Government in whatever capacity. We have a lot of very tough decisions to make but we will continue to get on with delivering the people’s priorities—and by the way, we will continue to ensure that we deliver value for money, that we do not waste taxpayers’ money, and that Ministers follow the ministerial code.

Theresa May: In April 1989, 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, yet nobody has been successfully prosecuted for their part in those unlawful killings. The most recent trial collapsed, because although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, as it was evidence to a public inquiry, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice. Will my right hon. Friend urgently look at the ramifications of that judgment for current and future public inquiries, and ensure that people are given the justice that has been so cruelly denied to the families of the Hillsborough 96?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Of course, the families of the 96 who died in the Hillsborough disaster and those who were injured have shown tremendous courage and determination. My right hon. Friend raises a particular issue about the recent court case and asks for a review of the law. I can give her the reassurance that we will always consider opportunities to review the law and how it operates if necessary, and we will certainly be looking at the case she describes.

Peter Grant: In just over three years, the directors of Blackmore Bond plc took £46 million of other people’s money and made it disappear. Around 2,800 small investors, whose money the directors promised would be secure, now face losing everything. Most of the money—around £26 million—was taken by Blackmore Bond after the Financial Conduct Authority had received compelling evidence from an  expert witness who told them that he thought the company was breaking the law, but before the FCA took any decisive action. How many more scandals like that will it take before we have a regulatory environment that is fit for purpose and that offers our constituents proper protection against investment scams?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I am afraid I had no advance notice of the question and cannot comment on the case, save to say that if he will send me details, we will get back to him as soon as we can.

Sir David Amess: I am delighted that Southend-on-Sea has now been given the opportunity to become a city.
In the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, a million and a half ladies were forced to give up their babies for adoption. By any standards that was cruel, and the hurt is still felt by those ladies today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that an apology should be given, and that all those involved in the process should acknowledge that forced adoption was wrong?

Boris Johnson: I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about Southend, but also what he says about those who have been affected by forced adoption. The practices that led to forced adoption cannot now occur because the law protects birth parents. He asks for an apology; I can tell him that the agencies involved in forced adoption in the past have apologised for their role—and quite right too.

Ian Lavery: As eloquently highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, recent reports have revealed that during the pandemic the loss in learning has been absolutely catastrophic. The north-east is once again, sadly, trailing the field, with the loss in some subjects more than double that of other regions. The attainment gap, which has been mentioned, between the most and least affluent areas is potentially set to grow by between 10% and 24%. That is desperate, ye knaa—really desperate. The Government’s catch-up funding is quite simply derisory, too small, too narrow, too slow—comments articulated by the former education recovery chief before his unfortunate resignation. Prime Minister, the parents in Wansbeck in my constituency are listening. You have a wonderfully privileged educational background. Can you use it to explain how 20p per day helps kids in my patch catch up?

Boris Johnson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, again, I am afraid what he is saying is completely wrong. The sums that we are already investing in education are huge and we have announced a £3 billion additional package of catch-up, investing not just in teacher training—another £400 million to help teachers improve their qualifications as they go up the ladder—but in the biggest tuition programme in the history of this country: the biggest anywhere in the world. That will make a huge difference to young people in Wansbeck and across the country. Many kids are getting private tuition at the moment, but loads are not. We want to level up.

Nicola Richards: Recently, I met Giani Singh, who 25 years ago founded the Sikh Helpline UK, which is based on West Bromwich High  Street. I went to hear about the fantastic work that it has done over the years, supporting the community with advice on issues such as hate crime, domestic violence, bullying, mental health, addiction and more. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Giani Ji and the team for their work and wish them the very best of luck with their 350-mile charity bike ride from Edinburgh to West Bromwich next month?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the Sikh Helpline UK. I am very happy to join her in wishing Giani Singh and the team the very best of luck for their charity bike ride.

Jonathan Edwards: Brexit is quickly turning into a story of betrayals. First, it was the Northern Irish Unionists, then it was the fishermen, and now our farmers face a skewed trade deal with Australia. The big question therefore is: who comes next? Considering that the Trade Remedies Authority wants to cut protections on half of the steel products previously protected by the EU, are our steel industry and the vast supply chain that it sustains next in line?

Boris Johnson: No. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that once again he is completely missing the dynamism and optimism of so many people I meet in the agricultural sector, who see opportunities for Welsh lamb and Welsh beef around the world. Why is he not thinking of this as an opportunity for exports, instead of cowering in this way? Welsh lamb, Welsh beef and Welsh farmers can do brilliantly from the deals that we are opening up around the world. He should be championing Welsh agriculture and Welsh produce.

Claire Coutinho: In East Surrey I have been working with brilliant parish councils in Smallfield, Burstow and Horne to ensure that we can get a better balance on heavy goods vehicle movements, allowing local businesses to thrive but ensuring that residents feel safe. I welcome the Government’s work to clamp down on moving traffic offences, but would the Prime Minister also consider taking another look at the powers of the traffic commissioners to ensure that we can find a balance?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. Traffic enforcement outside London can only be undertaken by the police, but I will certainly look at the role of the traffic commissioners in the cases that she describes.

Emma Lewell-Buck: “Our greatest national asset”; “Best of this country”; “Record increase in funding”; “Saved my life—no question”; “My No.1 priority”—all things that the Prime Minister said about our NHS. Yet award-winning South Tyneside District Hospital has lost vital services and been told by his Government to make further cuts to remaining services. Later today, I am presenting a petition on behalf of more than 40,000 of my constituents who are against these cuts. Like me, they want him to help us save our hospital and ensure, for once, that he is able to match his rhetoric with some action. Will he?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and all the changes that the hon. Lady mentions will be consulted on in the usual way. I note that Dr Shahid Wahid, the executive medical director of the trust, was recently quoted in the Shields Gazette as saying:
“This is about improving surgical services…It is not about downgrading anything”.
The hon. Lady mentions cuts: this Government, this year alone, have given another £92 billion—£92 billion—to support our NHS, on top of the huge commitments that we have already made.

Jacob Young: Yesterday we had the fantastic announcement of £25 million of investment into Redcar town centre, which will allow us to build a new water sports facility at Coatham, a new indoor activity centre on the Esplanade and give the town a much-needed lift. I am working with the council on other bids for Eston, a tier 6 area, but in the meantime may I invite the Prime Minister to come to the mighty Redcar and see our plans for levelling up our area—and I will even treat him to a lemon top?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for the people of Redcar. Thanks at least partly to his advocacy, we have announced a town deal to benefit Redcar and the levelling-up fund will help secure local investment in infrastructure and communities in Redcar. As and when my diary permits, I will be thrilled to join him for what I think he described as a lemon top.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
12.40 pm
Sitting suspended.

Opposition Day - 1st Allotted DayOpposition Day

Investing in Children and Young People

Kate Green: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the resignation of the education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, over the Government’s inadequate proposals to support children after the coronavirus pandemic; agrees with Sir Kevan’s assessment that the current half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of young people; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward a more ambitious plan before the onset of the school summer holiday which includes an uplift to the pupil premium and increased investment in targeted support, makes additional funding available to schools for extracurricular clubs and activities to boost children’s wellbeing, and provides free school meals to all eligible children throughout the summer holiday.
It is a privilege to open this debate. Today I invite hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House to put children and young people first and support our motion. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who does not agree that children and young people are our country’s most precious asset, that as we emerge from the pandemic and begin to rebuild our country their education and wellbeing must be our top priority, and that we owe it to them to match the ambition, optimism and enthusiasm they have for their own lives and their futures with measures to ensure that every child can enjoy an enriching childhood and achieve their full potential. So Conservative Members must understand not just my dismay, but the dismay of every teacher and parent I have spoken to in the past week at the wholly inadequate announcement from the Secretary of State, providing just 10% of the funding that the Government’s own highly respected expert education adviser Sir Kevan Collins had said was needed to enable children and young people to bounce back from the pandemic. If this Government really want to make good on the Prime Minister’s claim that children’s education is his priority, the paltry announcement we got last week is simply inexplicable. As we know, the plans fall so far short of what is needed that Sir Kevan refused to be associated with them and resigned last Wednesday. He described them as too small, too narrow and too late —and he was right.

Tim Farron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Green: I will not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There was nothing in the plans to support children’s socio-emotional wellbeing, which parents and teachers have told us again and again is their priority for children and young people. I support small group tutoring as an element of supporting children to catch up on lost learning, but last week’s announcement of additional funding will amount to just one hour per fortnight per child of tutoring, and the Government’s package performs woefully when compared with those of other countries, amounting to just £50 per pupil compared with £1,600 in the USA and £2,500 in the Netherlands.

Damian Hinds: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that that figure she has just given for the US relates solely to catch-up funding and therefore is comparable? Does she need to add up a number of figures from the British Government for English schools? Is she suggesting that that is what that figure refers to?

Kate Green: It is certainly not 30 times out in its accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to ask about the make-up of the different figures, but even on my most generous interpretation of the amount the Government have put in over the past year to support children’s catch-up, which I calculate would amount to £310 per pupil, we are still well short of what other countries are spending.

Tim Farron: The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out that the Government’s own expert adviser recommended 10 times more money than is being given, so I am sure she would agree that this is an outrage. Does she also agree that headteachers and teachers will make the best use they can of what paltry money the Government do give them, so is it not right that the professional judgment of headteachers should be trusted in how they spend that money? Yes, there has to be accountability, but surely they should be given the freedom to make the best choices of how to make the best use of what money they are given.

Kate Green: I am grateful for the opportunity to echo the appreciation of the work that school leaders and staff have been doing over the past 15 months of the pandemic, and of course we must respect and recognise their professional judgment.
The suggestion that last week’s announcement is just an instalment and that there will be a review of what more is needed is both wholly unnecessary, when Sir Kevan Collins has laid out a clear and comprehensive plan, and is an insult to children who have already lost between two and four months of classroom time and should not have to wait another term or more for the support that they need to recover from the pandemic.

Jonathan Gullis: In the proposals that Sir Kevan Collins made, how much of the £15 billion was related to the half-hour extension of the school day? Does the hon. Lady agree that if we are to do something as radical as extending the school day, which I support, the evidence base should be looked at and it should be done carefully? We will have trade unions to negotiate with, and rightly so, as well as teachers who are not on contracts and may have had their hours extended beyond 4 o’clock already. There are problems with suddenly announcing things without having carefully thought them through.

Kate Green: If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably building up more problems than actually exist in the provision of extended activities at the end of an enhanced school day. We already know that many schools are able to provide some such activities, and that it is not just through schools, but through youth and community organisations, that such activities can be added to the school day. We are talking about ensuring that every child has the opportunity to benefit as soon as possible—we had 15 months to plan this— from the enhancement that those activities can bring to their childhood.
The Conservative party’s plans are a terrible betrayal of children and young people’s excitement at being back in class with their friends and teachers, their optimism and their aspirations for the future. Today, I hope that we can come together as a House to resolve to do better. Last week, I was proud to publish Labour’s children’s recovery plan, which proposes a package of measures for schools, early years and further education settings to address children and young people’s learning loss and their wellbeing.

Robert Halfon: rose—

Kate Green: I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Education.

Robert Halfon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), because I think that a longer school day is essential. In the media last week, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she opposed a longer school day. There is a big difference between a longer school day and enhanced activities, and a longer school day is a core part of Sir Kevan Collins’s programme. I think we need the Labour party to be clear on exactly what it supports.

Kate Green: My reading of Sir Kevan’s proposals is that the longer day would be used for exactly the kind of activities that the Labour party supports: social and emotional play, learning and development-related activities, including sport, the arts, drama, debating, music and so on. There is also time, of course, for some focus on formal, more structured learning, but we have heard again and again from teachers and parents, as I am sure Conservative Members have, that children get tired and their concentration wanes after seven or eight hours.

Jonathan Gullis: indicated dissent.

Kate Green: There is no point in the hon. Member shaking his head. That is what they told us. Any parent will recognise the fact that expecting children—

Jonathan Gullis: Children are far more resilient.

Kate Green: I am coming on to children’s resilience, so it will be good to speak about that in a moment. I think we have to be realistic about expecting children to work full on, especially children who may already have a large amount of homework. We have to be realistic about what childhood is for. Enhancing a school day, of course, increases some learning opportunities, but we have to recognise that play, social activity, arts, culture and music are also learning activities and will therefore enhance children’s attainment.
In recent months, parents and teachers have told us again and again that socio-emotional wellbeing and time for children to be with their friends is their top priority. That is why our plan would see all schools offering new extracurricular activities, from breakfast clubs to sport, music, art and drama, creating time for children and young people to play and socialise, and removing the cost barrier that prevents all schools from offering those activities or all children from participating in them. Such targeted programmes can also help to accelerate children’s academic development, delivering two months of additional progress, which rises to around  three months for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is therefore all the more disappointing that the Government have failed to invest in these activities.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) rightly says, children are resilient, and many will be able to overcome the challenges and disruption of the past 15 months, but some will struggle and need more help to recover. That is why Labour’s plan also proposes funding to meet their needs by providing schools with additional resources to hire specialist counselling or mental health provision.
Mental health support, and activities that make use of schools’ fabulous facilities to provide an enhanced offer at the end of the school day, are important in and of themselves. They also free up teachers to concentrate more of their time on children’s learning. However, more must be done to make up lost learning. Although small group tutoring will help, the truth is that most children are going to do most of their learning in class, alongside their classmates.
That is why Labour would reverse the Government’s £133 million stealth cut to the pupil premium, and why we are calling for a further boost to the pupil premium in early years and schools, as well as for its extension to further education, to reach the most disadvantaged children and young people—including, of course, those with special educational needs and disabilities or in alternative provision. That targeted funding will enable teachers to focus extra attention on the children who need it most, helping to close the attainment gap, which Sir Kevan suggests could have increased by between 10% and 24% as a result of the pandemic.
Finally—hon. Members must forgive a sense of déjà vu here—our motion calls on the Government fully to deliver free school meals to every child eligible for them over the summer holidays. The current guidance for the Government’s holiday activities and food programme proposes that children should receive that support on just 16 out of 30 weekdays this summer. No one in this House would think it acceptable for their children to be fed only once every two days, so why do the Government think it is acceptable for the 1.6 million children eligible for free school meals? Children do not go on half rations just because it is the holidays. The Government really must put this right before this term ends, to ensure that no child goes hungry over the summer.
Today, more than 200 charities, education experts, business leaders, unions and young people have called on the Government to put children at the heart of the recovery, so it would be especially fitting for every hon. Member in this House to support our motion today—to support our call for the development, by the summer, of an ambitious recovery plan that enables our children to access world-class education, receive support for their mental health and wellbeing, enjoy the opportunity to make the most of their childhood, and achieve their full potential.
As adults, we have a responsibility to match the ambition that children have for their own future. That is why addressing the impact of the pandemic on young people must be our priority, for their life chances and wellbeing, and for our country’s future success and prosperity. Today, we have set out how Labour would make Britain the best country in the world to grow up in. This afternoon, I hope that Members across the House will join us in voting for that bold ambition.

Nick Gibb: I welcome this debate and the opportunity that it gives us to set out clearly what we have done and what we plan to do to ensure that no child—no child, Mr Speaker—will suffer damage to their long-term prospects because of the pandemic. As I listened to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talk about vision and ambition, I asked myself, where was she—where was the Labour party—on all the big strategic decisions we have taken since 2010 to transform our education system and drive up academic standards in our schools?
Where was the Labour party in 2010, when we reformed the national curriculum, replacing Labour’s dry, bureaucratic, competence-based curriculum with a curriculum rich in the knowledge that children need to succeed? Where was Labour when we transformed the teaching of reading and introduced the phonics screening check, ensuring that every child is set on the path to becoming a fluent reader? Where was Labour when we extended the academies programme to primary schools and to good and outstanding schools to give them the autonomy to drive up standards even further and to help underperforming schools improve? Where was Labour when we introduced the EBacc performance measure, ensuring that more young people are studying the core academic subjects at GCSE—English, maths, science, history or geography and a foreign language —that are so fundamental to later progress and success?
It is this party’s vision, ambition and actions that, under three Conservative Prime Ministers, have led to the attainment gap between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers closing by 13% in primary schools between 2011 and 2019 and by 9% in secondary schools. It is this party’s vision, ambition and actions that have resulted in 86% of schools being judged by Ofsted as good or outstanding, compared with just 68% when we came into office, despite the bar of what makes a good or outstanding school being raised. It is this party’s ambition, vision and actions that have led to this country rising in the international league tables of children’s reading ability—we were up to joint eighth place in the progress in international reading literacy study published in 2016—with nine to 10-year-olds from this country scoring our highest ever results and low-attaining pupils improving the most.
The commitment of Conservatives to educational standards and to the success of our school system was demonstrated clearly when, in 2010, even as we had to tackle the crisis in the public finances after the global financial crisis, school funding was one of just three areas of public spending that were protected from the spending constraints needed at the time to restore confidence in our public finances and our economy. At every stage of this appalling pandemic, it is the commitment of this Conservative Government, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Education Secretary to education standards and to the success of our schools that has meant that we have taken every step possible to protect the education and life chances of young people.
Our commitment to education has been at the core of the Government’s decision making, only closing schools when absolutely necessary and reopening them before any other sector of society and the economy, and ensuring that the most vulnerable children and the children of   critical workers have been able to attend school throughout the pandemic. What a debt of gratitude we all owe to the thousands of teachers and support staff who have kept our schools open, even during the darkest days of this pandemic.
In 2019, we secured the biggest school funding settlement in over a decade—a three-year settlement adding £14.4 billion in total to school funding—and we reconfirmed the 2021-22 school funding settlement, even as the Treasury faced enormous bills as we fought the pandemic, while protecting people’s incomes and jobs.

Kate Green: Surely the Minister accepts that the figures he suggests for school funding ignore and overlook the fact that we have seen a real-terms funding cut for schools of 9% over the last 10 years.

Nick Gibb: That is not what the Institute for Fiscal Studies says is the record of our spending on schools once we reach the end of the three-year financial settlement for schools.
When schools were closed to most pupils in March last year, we continued to provide support to pupils eligible for free school meals, even though they were at home, and we extended it to the Easter holiday, to the Whitsun half-term and, with inspiration from Marcus Rashford, to the long summer break. Altogether, over £450 million has been spent through the food voucher scheme. We invested more than £400 million to provide laptops, tablets and internet access, with over 1.3 million computers built to order, imported, configured and delivered to schools, so that every child, regardless of means, could continue to study and be taught while locked down at home. Again, what a debt of gratitude we owe to our teachers, who have developed lessons and learned how to teach remotely and to engage their pupils while confronting their own challenges in working from home.
We supported the inception of the Oak National Academy, helping schools to provide high-quality online lessons. Thanks to the hard work and brilliance of scores of highly talented teachers, that has led to over 94 million views and downloads of those lessons, and Oak will continue to have a critical part to play in helping schools and helping pupils to catch up.
We put in place a system of controls in schools to ensure that as they reopened after the summer, they would be as safe as possible from the spread of the virus. We also provided £139 million to help schools cope with the exceptional costs that they faced during the first lockdown. Again, I thank teachers and support staff for all their hard work last summer to adapt their schools and introduce the new safety measures.
In June 2020, while we were still in lockdown, the Prime Minister announced the first £1 billion commitment to ensuring that pupils were able to catch up: £650 million of catch-up premium and £350 million for a teaching programme—a new initiative to provide private one-to- one or small-group tuition for the children most in need. We created a market. We worked with the Education Endowment Foundation to identify and evaluate the best tutoring companies—33 in all—and asked them to expand their number of tutors. So far, more than 230,000 pupils have been enrolled, and our announcement last week extends that further still to 6 million courses. This is an evidence-based approach that research suggests  that could help to boost progress by up to three to five months for every pupil who takes one of those 6 million courses. Combined with our provision through the 16 to 19 tuition fund, it will amount to 100 million hours of tutoring over the next three years.

Clive Efford: Would the money not be better spent through the schools themselves? Are teachers not in the best position to identify the pupils who are in the greatest need of additional tuition? Could teachers not work in small groups with children to advance them through the school curriculum, rather than involve outside companies that have no idea of the history of the children or their records?

Nick Gibb: We want to have both. In the package that we announced last week, £579 million is allocated to schools to do just that. They can use that money either to employ local tutors or to free up their own teachers to tutor the pupils who they know need the most help. The idea behind the hon. Gentleman’s exhortation was announced last week.

Tim Farron: I have raised with the Prime Minister the issue of the Government directly commissioning outdoor education centres—of which there are dozens of excellent examples in Cumbria—to make use of their skills and talents to help re-engage young people with a love of learning. It is not about cramming subject-wise. Will the Minister engage with me and Brathay, the charity in my constituency that has written a draft proposal for the Prime Minister, to see whether we can make that a reality in schools right throughout the country, not just in Cumbria?

Nick Gibb: Yes; we share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. Outdoor education centres are wonderful places, and none are more wonderful, of course, than those in the Lake district, which the hon. Gentleman represents. I would be happy to discuss those issues with him further. He will know that residential courses are now available for schoolchildren as a result of our moving to step 3 of the road map.
In February this year we announced £700 million of funding to extend the tutoring programme, to provide extra funding to schools through the recovery premium, and to fund a summer school programme aimed at year 6 pupils who are about to start secondary school.
But of all the catch-up and education recovery initiatives and funding that we have announced and provided this year and last year, the most important catch-up is happening every day in tens of thousands of classrooms throughout the country. Eight million pupils are back in school—back to the routines and disciplines of study and to being taught by 450,000 highly qualified and committed teachers. That is why the Government have been so determined to reopen schools to all pupils at the earliest, safest moment, and it is why the £400 million of funding for continuing professional development and teacher training is probably the most important element of the package of measures that we announced last week. We are supporting teachers with 500,000 courses over the next three years, helping the profession to be the best that it can be, and supporting the professional development of early years practitioners, with all the benefits that great teaching will bring for pupils and  for catch-up.
If having pupils back at school and benefiting from great teaching is key to catch-up, why would not a proposal to extend the time that children spend at school be a highly effective measure to increase attainment and help children to catch up what has been lost during the pandemic? That is why we are reviewing the evidence of the benefits of a longer school day and consulting with parents, teachers and pupils about how and whether to introduce such measures. It would be a big change and would require significant funding and more teachers, which is why we are right to take a short period of time to review the evidence and consult. The review will be ready in time for the spending review later this year.

Cat Smith: The Minister has been on his feet for over 10 minutes now. Does he share my concern and that of the Disabled Children’s Partnership that disabled children and parent carers have been completely missed out of the Government’s plans for education catch-up? What message does he send to parents of disabled children?

Nick Gibb: I do not accept the hon. Member’s views. We have put disabled children and children with special educational needs absolutely at the core of our decision making. We have enabled vulnerable children to remain in school—in special schools or in mainstream schools—throughout the pandemic. As for all the funding that we have allocated to schools, particularly through the £650 million catch-up premium, three times as much funding per pupil was allocated to children with special educational needs and disabilities through that programme, demonstrating our understanding and concern about those children, in particular, in our school system.

Valerie Vaz: May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for taking a personal interest in Joseph Leckie Academy? The building is looking absolutely fantastic, and I hope he comes to visit. However, I want to pick him up on funding, because some of my heads in Walsall South do not recognise the extra funding that the Government say they are giving. Many are operating on a deficit. Will he write to me and set out exactly which schools are operating on a deficit and which are operating on a surplus?

Nick Gibb: Yes, I would be delighted to write to the right hon. Member. We know that schools are spending considerable sums during this period. As I have set out, we have all the different funding provisions that we have allocated to schools for catch-up and, indeed, through the exceptional costs fund during the period from March to July. There have been other schemes—when there have been excessive numbers of staff off, for example—in which we have provided funding for schools. Schools that are in serious trouble with their finances will always have recourse to their local authority or to the Department, if they are an academy, to tackle those particular challenges.

Craig Williams: The Minister is right about the importance of face-to-face and in-school education. I welcome a lot of the funding announced for England, but as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I note that our school attendance is the worst in the Union. I implore him to work with the Welsh Government, on the review, the funding and the tutors that he is making available, on a cross-border basis to address this  issue. We need to work with the Welsh Government and help them with schemes such as the ones he is announcing today, which we look enviously over the border at.

Nick Gibb: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am always delighted to work with the devolved Administrations, particularly on issues of mutual concern and in education, in particular.

Ben Everitt: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Gibb: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to try to conclude my remarks, so that other people can speak.
As we have shown throughout this crisis, the Government are ready to spend to deliver on our commitment to education. We announced £1.4 billion only last week, and as the Prime Minister said then,
“there is going to be more coming down the track, but don’t forget this is a huge amount that we are spending.”
Behind the Opposition’s warm words and hot indignation, there is no substance and no real plan, but the Government are getting on with the challenging job of tackling the pandemic, keeping our economy alive, supporting people’s incomes, supporting the NHS and our doctors and nurses, vaccinating the nation, and providing education and support to 8 million children and young people. Working with tens of thousands of able civil servants and supported by Conservative Back-Bench MPs, we are doing every day what we believe to be right in order to get the country through this crisis. We know that there is more to do, not just to tackle the impact of the pandemic, but to continue to spread the benefits of our reforms since 2010 across the country to ensure that all children are taught an extensive, knowledge-rich curriculum by well-trained teachers in a disciplined and caring environment, with high expectations and where success is rewarded and celebrated. That is our vision, that is our commitment, and that is our ambition.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I remind hon. Members that there is a speaking limit of six minutes for Back Benchers? The countdown clock will be visible on the screens of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will operate. Is Jeff Smith ready?

Jeff Smith: I am, Mr Speaker. Thank you for calling me so early in the debate. First, I pay tribute to all the teachers and school staff in Manchester, Withington for the amazing job that they have done over the last year. They have kept our schools open. They have kept children learning and they have supported families in really difficult times. They have been some of the heroes of the pandemic.
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who made an excellent speech. The key point was when she said that Labour would put children and young people at the heart of the recovery from the pandemic, and they deserve to be, because this has been  a tough year for young people. It has been tough for everybody. In the most formative years, a year really is a long time. I believe that young people are resilient, but there is no doubt that the last year will have had an effect on their mental health. The brilliant mental health charity Mind published a survey last year on the impact of the first lockdown and it said that two thirds of young people said that their mental health had worsened during the first period of lockdown restrictions. We have now had another year of various lockdowns and restrictions. It has been hard for young people, so we need the best mental health support we can give to children affected by the crisis.
There is an equally worrying issue around lost learning and the widening of the disadvantage gap in attainment. Despite the brilliant work of teachers and schools generally, there are pupils who have not been able to access learning as they should. I know that my own niece and nephew, who live in quite a small crowded home, really struggled to get the internet access that they needed to be able to properly access online learning. It is really tough in disadvantaged areas to be able to do that. In Manchester, the gap in months between our disadvantaged pupils and non-disadvantaged pupils nationally is likely to be 8.2 months at primary and 18.2 months at secondary level. That is really worrying and we need a plan for recovery.
When the Government bring in a highly respected adviser such as Sir Kevan Collins as education recovery commissioner, and when he puts forward well-received and well-respected proposals, we would expect any Government to act on those proposals. Can there be any more damning condemnation of this Government’s actions, any more damning illustration of their failure of our young people, than their own adviser resigning in protest at the inadequacy of the Government’s response? It is a shocking indictment, but, unfortunately, it is only the latest sign that the Government have got education policy wrong all along in the last year.
I met a group of heads last month to talk about issues in school. I have to tell the Minister that, from my conversations with those heads, you would not recognise the rosy picture of the education system that he has just painted. They were pretty damning in their assessment of the Government’s performance on education over the last year. The biggest complaint was on short-termism —not knowing what was happening from one week to the next; items never arriving until the last minute; and the Government not thinking through policy properly. We all recall the chaos over exams and the issues on assessment; the Government should have defined the process months ago. Problems on nursery funding compounded the difficulties, making life impossible for teachers trying to ration places for keyworker children. Reductions in pupil premium had a massive impact in big cities such as Manchester.
Budgets have been reduced in real terms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, meaning that schools are looking at having to lose staff when they are most needed. On budgets, over the last year, it has been a case of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Those are just some of the problems that headteachers have brought up with me.
On top of all that is the failure to properly support families. About 100 yards from where I am speaking now, there is a mural on the side of our local coffee shop  that has become something of a tourist attraction. It is a brilliant portrait by the street artist Akse of a man who has become a national treasure. Even a lifelong Manchester City fan such as me has to doff my cap to Marcus Rashford for his brilliant work highlighting food poverty, but, again, what an indictment that it took a football star to help to shame the Government into providing free school meals during school holidays.
Labour would extend free school meals into the holidays, including this summer. We have a plan, outlined by my hon. Friend, to make a real difference to young people across the country: small group tutoring for everyone who needs it; high-quality mental health support in every school; support for teachers; and a proper education recovery premium, investing in the children who have had their schooling disrupted most.
The amount committed so far by the Government is inadequate, as Sir Kevan has said. It is just a 10th of what he recommended and what is needed. I know that the Prime Minister has suggested that there is more to come. If there really is more money to come, it is needed now so that pupils can be catching up now. The Government really need to put their money where their mouth is now. Sir Kevan wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
“I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size.”
Those are damning words. The Government are failing hundreds of thousands of children. Our children need a plan that will not fail them, and Labour has that plan. I hope Members from all parties will support it this afternoon, for the sake of all our young people.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the debate. I begin by paying tribute to all the teachers and support staff in my constituency of Harlow and the villages for all their work to try to keep children learning over this difficult time.
My views on education funding are clear. Before the 2019 election, the Education Committee published a proposal that focused on a long-term plan for a secure funding settlement for schools and colleges. I have campaigned hard, since Easter 2020, for money to be spent on a catch-up fund because of damage from school closures and the lasting effect on children. That is why, while not a lockdown sceptic, I was a schooldown sceptic. My position is therefore clear.
However, I reject the premise of the motion because it implies that the Government are doing nothing for education funding. The Secretary of State and the Schools Minister deserve credit for the £3 billion that has been secured for the catch-up premium and recovery, as does my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Children and Families, for the extra £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme, for catch-up, sporting and wellbeing activities and free school meals. Many millions of pounds extra have been given to local councils and charities to ensure that children are fed properly. There is also an extra £79 million for mental health. The motion should have acknowledged that extra funding.
At any other time, funding of more than £3 billion to the schools system would be welcome, especially when £400 billion has been spent on the covid pandemic. With all that in mind, I want to focus on two matters. The first is the catch-up fund and ensuring that it  reaches the most disadvantaged pupils. The second is my hope that the Government will implement an important part of Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendations—a longer school day. I have huge respect for the shadow Education Secretary, but she still did not make it clear whether the Labour party genuinely supports a properly structured, longer school day.
My worry about the catch-up fund is that it appears that not enough is reaching disadvantaged pupils. Recent figures suggest that 44% of people receiving the pupil premium were missed. There is also significant regional disparity: for example, there is huge take-up in the south- west, but just 58% take-up in the north-east. If the catch-up programme is to be the success that I believe it could be, Ministers must ensure that funds are directed towards the most disadvantaged pupils who have learnt the least during the pandemic.
Perhaps one way of doing that is to allow schools more autonomy to choose their tuition routes to permit teachers to choose their own catch-up tutors, not leave it solely to the groups already chosen by the Department for Education, however good they may be. I accept that there must be absolute, definitive criteria for quality and outcomes. The teachers and support staff are best placed to identify those most in need of additional support and they can offer the quality catch-up that those pupils require.
I want to discuss the key part of Sir Kevan Collins’s plan. It is no good going on about his resignation if a key part of his plan is rejected, as it appears that the Opposition are doing. It is the idea of a longer school day. I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s response to my question during the statement on Monday. He said that
“there is a body of evidence that can be collected that shows that extra time in the classroom can deliver real benefits for pupils. It is about getting the combination right.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 691.]
The Schools Minister has been even more encouraging today about what could happen once the evidence is there. That is a huge step forward.
I have said previously in the House that I am talking not about an extended school day in terms of pupils learning algebra—though, knowing the Schools Minister, he would be delighted if that occurred—until 7 o’clock in the evening, but a combination of academic catch-up and extracurricular activities to improve mental health and wellbeing. We know that 39% of academies set up before 2010 have seen success for pupils from the introduction of a longer school day, and I have seen that in my constituency. I urge the Government in the meantime to set up some school pilot schemes in disadvantaged areas of the country, inviting civil society groups to help to run the extracurricular activity, and gather the evidence that will feed into the proposals for the comprehensive spending review.
In conclusion, the Government have provided a hefty starter, with billions of pounds allocated to catch-up funding, mental health wellbeing and free school meals. This commitment to education, alongside the lifetime skills guarantee and the Chancellor’s kickstart funding for apprenticeships, shows real direction of travel. I mentioned that this was a hefty starter—the main course will be a serious long-term plan for education, along with components such as a longer school day with a secure funding settlement. I hope—the Minister suggested  this in his statement today—that the Government reach this point by the time of the comprehensive spending review later this year.

Helen Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
There is not a part of the UK population that has not felt the severe impact of the covid-19 pandemic over the last 16 months. Whether it is the pain of bereavement or long-term health impacts, the hardship of reduced income or unemployment, all of our communities have suffered. But the impacts of the pandemic have been further fuelled by pre-existing inequality and disadvantage, and that is no more clearly seen than in the impact on children and young people. Our education system should be—and, indeed, thanks to the dedication and commitment of our teachers, often is—a bulwark against disadvantage. From early years through to college and university, education services provide the opportunity to reduce the impacts of poverty and deprivation. But faced with a stay-at-home order and the requirement to switch to online learning, we saw very quickly the impacts that 10 years of cuts to school funding have had on the resilience and capacity of our schools.
The stark reality is that UK schools were lagging far behind on investment in IT. Our schools should not have faced an impossible scramble to get laptops and broadband access to the most disadvantaged children. In the 21st century, the ability to learn through modern technology should have been a basic requirement, as it is in many other countries around the world. Instead, in my constituency, we saw our local council stepping in to provide laptops where the Government were far too slow, with communities fundraising and donating technology. While I pay tribute to all of that work, it should not have been necessary: our schools should have had the investment in basic IT equipment for every child already.
IT is just one example. Throughout the pandemic, the Government’s approach to children and young people has been chaotic and they have often seemed to be an afterthought—from the utter scandal of last year’s exam results, to the abandonment of so many university students, left to pay for accommodation they did not need, with little recourse for poor-quality online provision, to the failure of the catch-up tutoring programme and the shameful reluctance to fund free school meals during school holidays. Our children and young people feel left behind because they have been left behind by this Government.
We turn now to the national recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. The Government have a special duty to our children and young people to ensure that the harms they have suffered over the past year remain superficial wounds from which they recover fully, not deep, permanent, debilitating scars. Children must be at the forefront of recovery. Whether it is the babies born during the lockdown who have missed out on the earliest opportunities to socialise with other children so vital for speech and language development, or the teens whose independence was just beginning to expand at  the point at which they were confined to the four walls of their homes, or children with special educational needs and disability who simply have not been able to engage with online learning at all and have missed out on months of education and support, we must ensure that no child is left behind.
But the mean and paltry nature of the Government’s response is an insult to every child, every parent and every teacher, school leader, early years practitioner and youth worker in the country. The Government employed Sir Kevan Collins for his expertise to set out what was required to enable our children and young people to catch up and recover, and then decided they would ignore his recommendations and do it on the cheap, with a tutoring offer of less than £1 per day for each day that children were out of school. This insult comes on top of stealth cuts to the pupil premium, which will cost schools in Southwark, which covers part of my constituency, £1.2 million and mean that 723 children in Lambeth are no longer eligible for free school meals. This Government are adding to food poverty for our children and young people, not reducing it.
Our children and young people are the future of our economy and our communities; we cannot afford not to invest in their recovery. Labour has set out an ambitious and comprehensive plan to invest in our children based on a clear understanding of children’s needs. We would ensure that no child is left to go hungry by funding breakfast clubs and free school meals during the holidays. We would deliver the mental health support in every school that is absolutely vital in helping children come to terms with their experiences over the past year. And we would ensure an effective tutoring programme for every child who needs the support to catch up and provide funding for extra-curricular activities, which should be not a luxury for a privileged few but available to every child to expand their horizons, discover new talents and passions and have fun with their friends.
In closing, I pay tribute to the teachers, support staff, school leaders, youth workers and voluntary sector organisations across Dulwich and West Norwood who week by week for more than a year have been straining every sinew to deliver support for our children and young people. There is so much commitment, innovation and creativity in our communities and in our schools, but that work should be in addition to comprehensive, fully funded support provided by the Government, not, as it so often is, plugging the gaps.
I hope the Government will listen today, rethink our approach and fund the recovery programme our children so desperately need.

Damian Hinds: The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who speaks for the Opposition, was quite right when she said that children are our most precious assets, and, as parents, we share with our brilliant teachers; we rely on them for the education and preparation for adult life of our children, and I want to join with colleagues across the House in paying tribute to them and thanking them for all they do.
This is a moral imperative: we all know that there is a whole-cohort effect from this pandemic and a risk of lasting effects on this generation of children and young people, and we cannot let this generation be put at a  disadvantage because of covid. We also know that the effect has been felt very unevenly: some children have progressed entirely as they would have done in a regular year, but many have not, and we know that the attainment gaps that had been closing since 2010 will have started to widen again. We also know that this is not just about academic attainment; far from it, it is about the whole of children’s development—their extra-curricular activities, their socialising and their development as people.
This calls for a whole-of-society response including expanding mentoring programmes, having more volunteer readers, firms working more closely with schools, and having more STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—ambassadors, accelerated careers programmes and work experience. We need established broadcasters and new media to step up on early literacy programmes, and sports clubs and governing bodies have a key role to play, as do cultural organisations and the voluntary sector. In fact, everybody has a part to play in supporting this generation. For the Government of course it is about many things, too: it is about a bolstered school sports and activity plan, the holiday activities programme, the mental health services support reforms, working with local authority children’s services, innovations in early language and literacy, and the major upgrade to technical and vocational education which has at its heart T-levels.
And of course it is about money. A higher proportion of national income—Government money—is spent on British state schools than in many other countries, but clearly additional resourcing has been needed during the pandemic to support schools, and clearly it is needed now to support schools and children in its wake. Some of the figures bandied around about what other countries are doing are entirely misleading; they are not comparing, as it were, apples with apples or apples with pears, but comparing apples with pomegranates. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston speaking for the Opposition just repeated them without doing some basic fact checking, and I could say the same for her boss, the Leader of the Opposition. However, it is the case, of course, that many countries around the world are looking at the extra support that is now needed, and here we have just recently had the £14.4 billion uplift over three years and since the pandemic £3 billion in three different funding packages over the past 12 months. The last tranche of that will cover 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses in an unprecedented and unparalleled programme of individual and small group tuition. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister and his colleagues in the DFE have focused on the programmes with the best evidence, and we know that there is very strong evidence for one-to-one and small group tutoring.
It is also true that we cannot just dial these things up infinitely. People who have spoken to schools recently—I guess that is most colleagues here in the Chamber today—will know that the No. 1 thing that people are talking about is often not a lack of money for tutors but a lack of tutors, because obviously there were not 100,000 tutors hanging around who were not already busy when this thing hit, and that is a difficult thing to scale up for. It is right that schools should have the flexibility to source tutors locally—I was pleased to see that in the package—because it is they who will know their schools’ situation best.
I also welcome the involvement of Teach First in the programme, but I would ask the DFE to redouble its efforts in its search for where talented professionals can be found to support this effort. Of course, teachers themselves are a big part of the effort. For example, every year teachers volunteer to be exam markers, and many teachers will want to be involved in this programme, but we also need to think about recent retirees and PGCE returners. As my right hon Friend the Minister knows, many thousands of people in this country have a postgraduate certificate in education but are not currently teaching. It would be wonderful to get some of them to come back to the profession, either full time or part time—[Laughter.] I am not trying to shame anyone here. We also need to redouble our efforts on teacher workload to free up their time to be able to do these incredibly important things.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I would like to see us move to a rational, long-term, predictable system of funding that works both for when pupil numbers are shrinking as well as for when they are expanding, and perhaps this is the moment when that might be possible. It is important that we look at extra time to make up for lost time, and the tutor programme is of course part of that, as is moving back public exams a bit, but it is right to look at the question of a longer school day. Not everybody is excited about that prospect, but there is clearly a role for some of these important, enriching and broadening activities. It is right that the Government are taking an evidence-led approach, and I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. We look forward to hearing more in due course and at the spending review.

Rosie Winterton: In order to ensure that we get everybody in, I am going to have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.

Tahir Ali: In May, the End Child Poverty campaign released a report detailing the shocking levels of child poverty in the UK. For my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green the report confirmed what many of us already knew all too well: that child poverty was on the rise. Nearly half of all children in Birmingham, Hall Green live in abject poverty with no sign of this improving. I wrote to the Chancellor on behalf of my concerned constituents about this very issue and pointed out how his most recent Budget contained no hope for those millions of families living in abject poverty. This Government clearly have no intention of putting an action plan in place to meaningfully tackle the extreme levels of child poverty, and therefore they are failing not only the people of Birmingham, Hall Green but the people of Birmingham, the west midlands and the rest of the UK.
I cannot say I was surprised when I saw the news of the insulting offer made to schools. Sir Kevan’s resignation, while regrettable, was wholly justified considering the Government’s “half-hearted” approach to the so-called catch-up plan. This is yet another milestone in the failure of this Government to take seriously the issues faced by families and children. Schools in Birmingham, Hall Green have not seen their funding grow to meet the challenges of the pandemic, with many schools seeing a decrease in funding in the last year. This means that the  overall increase in funding for schools in my constituency is below the average for England. Many schools do not provide a full five-day education due to the funding constraints. Children deserve a full five-day education. The Government’s catch-up plan will do next to nothing to assist these schools in meeting the needs of teachers, pupils and parents.
I implore the Government to look closely at and learn from Labour’s children’s recovery plan to remedy this shameful situation. I also suggest that the Government seriously consider the current state of funding for our local authorities, which continue to provide essential services to families and children in need, despite their increasingly precarious financial situation. I call on the Government to ensure full and proper funding of local authorities, so that essential services can continue to meet demand. I also urge the Government to rethink their approach to universal credit in line with what End Child Poverty has suggested and make the £20 uplift permanent.

Anthony Browne: I very much welcome this debate and, like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the teachers in my constituency, who have been working really hard during the difficult last year in extraordinary circumstances, delivering education to pupils and ensuring that as few as possible fall behind. Inevitably, some children have fallen behind across the country, and it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that we do not leave a generation behind and that no child loses out from this pandemic.
The Opposition have called this debate because they say that they have a plan to recover education, so it is fair enough for us to look at how previous Labour education plans have done. What is the evidence on whether Labour’s education policies actually work? The last Labour Government up to 2010 had a range of education policies. “Education, education, education” was their mantra, and where did we score on international league tables in that time? From 2000 to 2009, we dropped from seventh to 25th place in the international scores for reading, we dropped from eighth to 28th place in the international league table for maths and we dropped from fourth to 16th place in the international league table for science.
What about Wales? Labour has been in charge in Wales for the last 22 years and responsible for education policy there, and what are the results? Labour education policies have led to Wales scoring below the international average on the PISA scores not just in one subject but in every subject tested. In science, maths and reading, children in Wales fall below the international average. In contrast, pupils in England score above the international average in every single subject. It is not that pupils in Wales score less than some in the rest of the UK and better than others; they score worse in every subject compared with every other part of the UK—compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
So there you have it: Labour has controlled education policy in Wales for 22 years, and now Welsh pupils score worse in every subject tested compared with pupils in every other part of the UK—talk about a lost generation. This has real world consequences. The number of students from Wales studying in the UK’s top Russell Group  universities has fallen. Graduates from Welsh universities are now the lowest paid in the UK. That is the hard evidence of Labour’s education plans.
If I were marking Labour’s education performance, I would give it a big F for fail. Labour trying to teach anyone else how to run an education system is like Mr Bean trying to teach someone how to be a secret agent—it has no credibility. The fundamental problem with Labour on education is that it suffers from producer capture—the blob says, “Jump” and Labour says, “How high?” Labour is, in effect, the political wing of the education unions. Education unions no doubt do a lot of good work for their members, but as we have seen time and again during the pandemic, the unions do not really have the best interests of children and parents at heart.
From free school meals to league tables to academies for our primary schools, education unions and Labour have resisted every successful education reform. In 2001 in Wales, working closely with its education union paymasters, Labour scrapped league tables for schools, which was followed closely by scrapping national testing for 14-year-olds. Nationally, the Labour party stood on an election platform with a manifesto commitment to scrap Ofsted, which plays such a vital role in keeping standards high in education. Labour will never improve education standards if it does just what education unions tell it—they have nothing to teach about education policy.
The pandemic has been terrible for the education of many children. The Government must help, and are helping, children to catch up with their education recovery plan. I fully commend it.

Cat Smith: I put on record my appreciation for the teachers, support staff, parents and pupils of the schools in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, who have faced a torrid 16 months of interrupted education. Parents have faced the unexpected opportunity—some might say—of home tutoring while trying to hold down their own jobs.
I particularly thank two primary schools that I visited a couple of weeks ago. Carter’s Charity Primary School in Preesall is a beach school. It was already very focused on outdoor education, but throughout the past year it has had a school allotment, engaging children in learning through doing, being outdoors and growing things, which is so important for their mental wellbeing after the time that they have had. Fleetwood’s Charity Primary School, also in Preesall, has turned its playing fields into a community orchard to bring the community together and create a space where we can take what we have done over the past 16 months of creating community and have a lasting legacy. Many of the children have planted trees that will be a reminder in years to come of the resilience that they have shown through what has been such a difficult time.
There is no doubt that the impact of covid-19 on young people and children has been profound. Their education has been interrupted, the employment opportunities have gone for our older young people, and their mental health is in crisis. It is on those topics that I wish to address my remarks.
From speaking to headteachers across schools, it has been really clear that children and young people are not able to learn while their mental wellbeing suffers. Given the importance of play for young children and of youth   work for older young people, we cannot see education through a narrow prism of just academic learning. Labour’s children’s recovery plan includes funding for schools to deliver new extracurricular activities, boost wellbeing and target support for children who have missed out, and an extension of free school meals for pupils this summer.
On mental health, recent data from NHS Digital suggests that one young person in six now has a probable mental health disorder. We must not underestimate the impact that the pandemic has had on those young people, because experiencing mental health difficulties can have far-reaching impacts, including on young people’s educational outcomes, their future earnings and their relationships. We know that the earlier a young person gets support for their mental health, the more effective that support will be, yet just over a third of young people with a diagnosable mental health condition are currently able to access NHS care and treatment.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a new joint campaign called Fund the Hubs, which is run by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition in partnership with YoungMinds, the Centre for Mental Health, the Children’s Society, Youth Access and Mind. The charities are calling for a systematic approach to supporting young people’s mental health so that young people can have a one-stop shop to access mental health support. They are calling for hubs across the country to be able to provide early support for young people’s mental health, with no need for appointment or referral, so that they can address their mental health issues sooner and get support faster.
Finally, youth work is phenomenal. It can support and bolster academic and educational learning outside the classroom. Given the crisis that our young people are currently living through, it is appalling—I find it unacceptable—that the sector is on its knees. In the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, the Government promised a £500 million youth investment fund. That has been promised, but not a single penny has materialised in the youth sector and we have had just £30 million announced for next year. From that announcement to today, not a penny has gone into supporting our young people through delivering youth work and youth services.
Will the Minister at least confirm that the piggy bank has not been raided and that the money will be forthcoming? Can she give an indication to those who work in the youth sector—those delivering youth work through local councils, but also those in the voluntary sector such as the Sea Cadets, the Guides and the Scouts—that the money will be forthcoming? Our young people need academic support and tutoring catch-up, and they need food in their bellies, but they also need youth work to provide the mental wellbeing and resilience that allow them to achieve academically, go out into the workplace, contribute to our economy and build those relationships. After all, after the year we have all had and the crisis we have all lived through, if young people are to be the future, we need to put our money where our mouth is—£500 million was promised; when will it be delivered?

Jonathan Gullis: As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has just done, I would like to thank my local teachers, support staff, parents and pupils for all they done throughout this global pandemic across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
I would like to ensure that it is on the record that when the £3 billion announced over the last 12 months specifically for catch-up is added to the increase in core school funding, the raising of the pupil premium, investment in the school estate, increased higher needs funding, investment in the free school meals national voucher scheme, in digital devices and in the holidays, activities and food programme, and the exceptional funding to cover specific unavoidable costs incurred by schools due to covid, it racks up to a total spend of £14 billion from this Conservative Government on education and young people. So the idea that the Conservative party, which I am proud to be part of—I am also a proud ex-teacher—somehow has not invested in young people and education is for the birds.
There must be an immediate response, but there also has to be a longer-term vision. I wish to focus on the idea of extending the school day, of which I am a huge advocate. I am delighted that there will be a review of it. Especially for disadvantaged students, such as the 31% of children in low-income families in Stoke-on-Trent, an extended school day could have a transformative impact in the long term, not only for them, but for their parents. We are talking about parents who have to take half a day out of work, and therefore lose their earnings, because they are having to go to collect their loved ones at 2.45 pm, 3 pm or 3.30 pm. It is simply unfair on those people, who are working hard to put money on the table for their kids. Having an extended school day will go a long to helping with that.
I was shocked to hear the shadow Education Secretary saying that she does not want children doing maths in the evening. I completely concur with Katharine Birbalsingh, the fantastic headteacher of Michaela Community School, who, in response to a BBC news clip, tweeted:
“What is it…where we think ‘doing maths’ is some kind of massive strain on our brains?!”
Ultimately, an extended school day means the opportunity for kids to learn and have that extra time with their teachers, just like many a private school child has had the advantage of being able to. That is about creating equality and fairness in our education system. Not just the academic, but the extra-curricular is important. Some 500,000 young people currently do not get to enjoy those sort of activities or holidays outside school. I want every child who attends a state school in this country, especially disadvantaged children, to get access to the very best, rounded education possible, such as the one I was able to have, as were many other Members in this House. So when we are thinking about post-pandemic recovery, we have a huge opportunity to get this sorted, and there is a simple way we could overhaul after-school activities in order to so do.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is a brilliant member of our Education Committee. Does he agree that a wealth of evidence shows that an extended school day, combined with academic, mental health and wellbeing activities, increases educational attainment, as well as helping pupils’ mental health? There is a wealth of evidence out there that makes his case absolutely.

Jonathan Gullis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that and could not agree with him more. Even though we sometimes cross swords in the Select Committee, on this we are absolutely united in understanding the importance, both academically and to the wellbeing of the student.
I have an idea for the Minister on how this can be achieved without having to get any new money. When it was originally brought in, the pupil premium was intended to offer activities and enrichment opportunities to pupils. If we were to ring-fence just 10% of the existing pupil premium budget—worth about £2.7 billion—for its original purpose, we could ensure that disadvantaged children get the same access to activities outside school as their better-off peers. Schemes such as The Challenger Trust are ideally suited to deliver this model. Run by Charlie Rigby, the trust offers activities to disadvantaged children that have been shown by the Education Endowment Foundation to boost confidence and motivation and, from this, improve attendance, behaviour and attainment in school.
The trust is already working with schools to offer after-school activities and is trialling its model in Gateshead. Working in local partnership trusts with school staff and youth services, who volunteer to carry on beyond the normal 3 pm closing time, the trust can extend the school day up to 6 pm, without increasing teacher workloads. Without allocating any more money, in this way we can extend the school day by three hours, seven days a week. We do not need masses of extra money to give all our children a better future. If we all use the pupil premium funding in the way it was originally intended, the funding will already be in place.
I would like to talk about the fantastic holiday activities and food programme. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), came to visit Ball Green Primary School in Stoke-on-Trent North to look at the unbelievable Hubb Foundation, led by Carol Shanahan and Adam Yates, a former professional footballer who delivered 140 activity sessions for young people across the city of Stoke-on-Trent in the Easter holidays, not just to boost their education and socialisation but to give them the skills to be able to cook and eat a really good cooked meal throughout the day.
The idea of shortening the summer holiday is something that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard time and again from me by text. Estimates in a report I did with Onward show that reducing the school summer holiday from six to four weeks would save the average family £266. That has a huge financial impact in the pockets of parents while also helping to tackle the plight of children not being able to get fed over a long summer break. More importantly, it means that the attainment gap of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which widens during the six-week summer break, can continue to be narrowed, so that when they return they do not have to spend the first seven weeks of term, on average, catching up to where they were in the previous academic year. Longer school days, shorter summer breaks, and ring-fencing the pupil premium: these are realistic long-term solutions that I hope the Minister will have in his mind when the review is undertaken.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, let me just say that I am absolutely not against taking interventions, but it would be helpful if colleagues who do so still stick to the five minutes, because otherwise we are preventing others from speaking later. I want us to help each other out and do the maths as well: you can see from the clock that you are keeping within the five minutes.

Matt Rodda: I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for advocating a similar policy to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) when she was Chair of the Education Committee in 2000.
We should respect the fact that there is general agreement in this House that one of the first duties of any Government is to invest in education and our children’s future, and I am glad that that sentiment has been expressed in this debate.
I thank teachers, parents and students for their hard work and perseverance during what has been an extremely difficult year that no one could have anticipated. The pandemic was clearly a once-in-a-century event. We need to try to put ourselves in the place of those young people and imagine—it is very difficult to do this—what they have been through in this incredibly difficult year. They have faced all sorts of obstacles, as have their teachers, and they have risen to enormous challenges, but despite all that effort, they have still fallen behind in their studies, through no fault of their own. This once-in-a-century event demands a response in line with the scale of the problem, and I am afraid that for all the warm words and the emphasis on the importance of education, there has clearly been a failure of Government on this important issue.
Looking at this in very general terms without getting distracted by the detail—we have had some interesting debates about education policy, and I am sure more will follow later as the debate pans out—there is the central question of money. On the issue of whether the Government are willing to commit sufficient national resources to this crucial problem, they have fallen short, as £50 per child is not comparable with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,000 in the Netherlands. Both those countries have followed active policies of school reform and investment in education over 20 to 30 years, as arguably we have also done in that time.
It is important to see this in the context not just of the detail of education policy but of the Department’s failure of leadership—I do not say that lightly—on a series of crucial issues during the last few months: its woeful mismanagement of the exam system last year; its failure on universities, where first-year students faced unbelievable pressure due to mismanagement; the failure of its tutoring programme; and its repeated failure on free school meals and holidays, where it had to be pushed by a footballer. I commend Marcus Rashford for his work—I am not a Man United fan, I am afraid, but he has done the most amazing job on this and we should all respect him—but the issue should have been taken up by Ministers long before he needed to come in and save the day.
What is worse, that follows a series of very poor decisions since 2010. The Minister may try, in a very smooth and sophisticated way, to defend some of those spending decisions, but it is quite clear that there has been a lack of investment in education since then. On teachers’ pay and a series of other indicators, this country fell behind where it should have been. That was a conscious decision of the Government, and it has led to a series of major problems in the system, such as  the crisis in special needs—arguably, it deeply worsened  that—the recruitment and retention crisis among teachers, which has a direct effect on children’s learning, and a series of other problems.
It is no good trying to criticise the record of the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 when, clearly, there was both major investment and, as a result, a major improvement in standards and attainment, demonstrable on a whole series of metrics. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) quoted selectively from some international studies when a whole range of extra countries joined them in the intervening period.
I appreciate that I am nearly out of time. The question now is, will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor rethink—will they listen to their own officials and, I believe, the ministerial team at the DFE—or will this be another example of the Government’s being all talk and, I am afraid, very little action?

Ben Spencer: Education is one of the best opportunities we can provide for young people; it is the best leveller-up. Sadly, our children have felt the burden of this pandemic, with school closures, cancelled exams, learning at home, and enrichment and extracurricular activities stopped. It is on us to fix that and to ensure that our children do not become the lost covid generation.
That is why I very much welcome the Government’s package of support and work on education recovery, and in particular the discretion given to our school leaders, the training and support for their profession, and the careful thought that is being put into longer-term, sustainable interventions to support education. I particularly support the provisions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). The impact of this pandemic will be felt for a generation, and our response must be equally broad and sustained.
I have regular Zoom meetings with my school leaders, and the message from each meeting is clear. Yes, things are tough, but in my nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools, prep schools and colleges—state and independent —our teachers have risen to the challenge. They have got on with it, and they continue to deliver for children living in Runnymede and Weybridge. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. Honestly, I believe that it is only through their passion and dedication that they have been able to continue delivering so much despite such adversity. I say to all my teachers and staff working in education: thank you.
However, the best way that we can thank those staff is to listen to them and respond to concerns that they raise. My school leaders tell me that they will do whatever is needed to support our kids, but they need help with one thing in particular: what is coming down the line. They put in the work, the graft, the inspiration and the passion—my God, do they do all they can for the children they teach!—but they need warning of what is coming down the line. I think there may be a few more twists in the tale in terms of what this pandemic could throw up—third waves, no waves, winter pressures. Whatever the future holds, we must give schools as much run-in time, preparation and contingency planning as possible so that they can start laying the groundwork. I ask the Minister, please, as part of our recovery plan, can my teachers have as much time and contingency planning as possible for whatever the future may hold?
I turn to the Opposition’s motion of regret. Last year, while we did everything we possibly could to keep schools open to the prevent the disruption and damage that we knew that would cause down the track, the Opposition were demanding closures. A few months ago, we sought to reopen schools as soon as we possibly could, yet we faced pressure from the Opposition and the unions to keep them closed. Where were these champions of education then? And now we mount an incredible package of support and they express regret. You couldn’t make it up.
Now is the time, not for political posturing or point-scoring, but for addressing the real issues facing our children, families and schools. This debate should not be about who can promise the biggest headline, but about how to deliver long-term support where it is needed, to ensure the best opportunities and education for our children, as we are doing.

Stephen Timms: I want to start by applauding the ambitious plan set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who opened the debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who is a member, with me, of the Work and Pensions Committee, because I want to talk about the Committee’s work. We are conducting an inquiry into children in poverty, because the number of children in poverty is climbing sharply. I am very grateful to the Education Committee for its support for our work; the Chair, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), spoke earlier in the debate.
In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on 27 May, Anne Longfield, who was the Children’s Commissioner for England until February, told us:
“Those that are living in poverty and at disadvantage are much less likely to achieve academically at various points we measure”.
Pointing out that child poverty is now twice the level of pensioner poverty, she identified to the Committee a gap in the Government’s capacity because of the loss of joint Department for Work and Pensions/DFE working. She said:
“There used to be a policy team, there used to be a policy around poverty. That was then able to look at how the impact of national policies needed to drive not only alleviation of poverty but a reduction of poverty.”
I think Anne Longfield is right: those two Departments should be working together as they did in the past.
Problems, obviously, have greatly worsened during the pandemic, as we have been reminded in the debate. Research by Kellogg’s has shown that nearly a fifth of schools have started a food bank since the pandemic began. Ben Levinson is headteacher of Kensington Primary School in my constituency—I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, plans to visit that school tomorrow. It is Primary School of the Year in the current Pearson National Teaching Awards. Ben Levinson told the Committee of a
“sizeable population…of families who have no recourse to public funds who have really struggled through this period.”
The school runs a food bank.
Joanne Ormond, head teacher of Maryport Church of England Primary School in Cumbria, told the Committee about
“that next level of families up that are struggling—the ones who have low-paid jobs, so they don’t necessarily qualify for the free school meals”,
and how difficult those families had found things during the pandemic. She singled out single parents as being very hard-hit.
The Social Metrics Commission has found that 57% of children in families working just part time are today in poverty. The Resolution Foundation has shown that the poverty rate for families with three or more children has now risen to almost half—47% of those families are in poverty. In written evidence, the charity Magic Breakfast told us that food insecurity, worse physical and mental health outcomes and lower educational attainment are all impacts of child poverty.
So the Government need to be very serious about this challenge and put their money where their mouth is. There is no sign of any willingness to do so as yet, as last week’s resignation of Sir Kevan Collins dramatically highlighted. We need a change of heart.

David Johnston: I think the point that the whole House agrees on is that teachers and schools did a tremendous job, and continue to do a tremendous job, throughout covid-19, and they have worked through all the holidays and were among the unsung heroes of the pandemic. The bit that we all ought to be able to agree on is that the Government have put tremendous amounts of money into education, children and young people. That started with a £14 billion commitment to raise the per pupil funding to £5,150 per secondary pupil and at least £4,000 for every primary school pupil, and to raise the teacher starting salary to £30,000. There has been money for mental health, laptops, summer schools, food and summer activities, and there has been money for catch-up. Last week’s announcement took the amount that we have committed in the last 12 months to £3 billion, which is paying for 6 million courses of tutoring. We know that one course can raise a child’s attainment by between three and five months from where they are at the moment. There have been issues with recruiting tutors in certain parts of the country, and that is why I am very pleased that, with this money, schools will be able to pay their own staff to deliver some of this tutoring where there are those issues. There is money for teacher training, too.
It is wrong to suggest that we just take that amount of money, divide it by the number of pupils and come up with a small amount of money that is being spent—that does not take into account all the other money that has been spent, and part of the point of this money is to direct it at the children who need it most. It is to direct it at the children who we know are behind rather than ones that we know are not, and to direct it at disadvantaged young people, which is something I am particularly keen that we do. The Government are looking at the evidence and at outcomes rather than simply the amount of money being spent.
The bulk of the money cited as the figure from the report is to extend the school day, and I support extending the school day. I was a governor of schools for 10 years, and I have been to charter schools in the US and seen them use an extension to the school day very effectively. But the important thing is not what I think; again, it is what the evidence suggests about the outcomes we will achieve, and it is right that the Government are reviewing  the evidence. I would actually support the school day being extended by more than half an hour, but we need to know what that review says, and yes, that will then take money.
I think money is the easy part here. the Labour party motion contains nothing about evidence or outcomes; it is about money—four areas where Labour wants more money. Generally speaking, when individuals and organisations call for money, the Opposition will get behind that call and will amplify it, and they are perfectly entitled to do that. But when we went into lockdown last March and the National Education Union said
“teachers should not be teaching a full timetable, or routinely marking work”,
and we knew what impact this was going to have on children and particularly disadvantaged children, the Labour party said nothing. When we wanted to get schools back so that we could start repairing some of this damage, the same union worked with other unions and came up with a 180-point checklist of things it wanted to see before schools could open, as though working with children was like working with radioactive material, again the Labour party said nothing. When the same unions were scaremongering—telling teachers that they were more at risk of covid than other professions that were also working with the community—again, Labour said nothing to challenge this. It actually went further and said, “Let’s not follow the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s age-based approach to vaccinations; let’s just vaccinate teachers”, because of the scaremongering that was going on.
The easy thing to do is to be on the side of more money. We could all do that all day, and say we need more money for things. The harder thing to do is to focus on outcomes and on the evidence, and that is why I am pleased that that is what the Government are doing. Yes, I would support a longer school day, as long as it means well targeted and well structured activity, but no, I cannot support the Labour party’s pose that the only issue is “Let’s give something more money”, and I will not be supporting its motion today.

Barbara Keeley: The past year has taken a toll on everybody’s mental health. According to the Government’s own former education adviser, more than 200,000 children have developed mental health conditions over the last year. Barnardo’s charity says:
“A defining impact of the pandemic has been on children’s mental health.”
After months of missed face-to-face education and time away from their friends, this is no surprise, and it is not a new problem. It comes on top of years of Government neglect of children’s mental health services, which has led to a situation where young people are pushed to breaking point before they get help.
The Health and Social Care Committee recently heard from two young people who described how services simply were not there when they needed them. One of them described being on a two-year waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services, and because he had that referral, he could not even access the support offered by charities while he waited. In his words:
“There wasn’t anything until things got so dire that it was the crisis team.”
As his mental health deteriorated, he ended up in A&E seeking emergency support, but that was only a sticking plaster.
If we do not provide the mental health support that our children and young people need now, we are simply storing up problems for the future when they hit crisis point. As Sir Kevan Collins has made clear, the Government had an opportunity to take bold action and put in place robust support services to help children recover from the past year. They have totally failed to rise to the scale of this challenge. Rather than having the kind of ambition shown by Labour’s children’s recovery programme, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have allowed the Treasury to dictate the terms and block any real progress.
We all know that the recovery funding provided falls far short of what is needed—of course, before that, the funding of children’s mental health services was inadequate. Even if the Government meet their targets for mental health support by 2024, there will still be 7.5 million children without access to mental health support at school. That means that early intervention and targeted support will be unavailable to the vast majority of children and young people, forcing them to wait until they hit crisis point and then have to access heavily rationed NHS services. In contrast, Labour’s plans would put a trained mental health counsellor in every school, providing the early intervention needed to support the mental health of our children and young people.
Across the board, the Government have failed to offer the support that our children need. They have had to be shamed into feeding children over the school holidays. Their latest holiday activity and food scheme proposes providing food for just 16 days over the summer. Not only is that scheme not covering every weekday, but in Salford it is set to reach barely one in five of the children on free school meals. That means that more than 10,000 children are going hungry in Salford alone.
While councils have stepped up in the past to make up the shortfall, we cannot expect them to keep doing so when they are already overstretched and underfunded. Rather than continuing to try to do this on the cheap, will the Minister finally do the right thing and agree to feed every child who needs it across the whole school holidays until the end of the pandemic?
Further, after a year that has taken a real toll on disabled children and their families, the Government’s proposals contain nothing specific to help them recover. The Disabled Children’s Partnership found that four in five disabled children have seen their support services withdrawn over the past year, and three in four are now socially isolated. At the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the Government took sweeping steps that allowed local authorities to stop providing many services to disabled children. While similar provisions related to care for adults were repealed this spring, there has been no change for children’s services.
Will the Minister confirm that not only will the Government ensure that all funding for those services is reinstated urgently, but that more funding is put into the services to help disabled children to catch up? Half an hour of tutoring a week will not make up for a year of missed speech and language therapy, which is why we need a dedicated plan to help disabled children and their families to recover from the pandemic. The Government could and should show more ambition,  and I urge them to change their approach to ensure that our children do not end up paying the price for Government incompetence.

David Simmonds: It has been a great pleasure for me in my constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner to have engaged directly today with children from Holy Trinity Primary School in Northwood, and a few weeks ago, in a direct personal visit, with children at Cannon Lane Primary School. It is very clear how much progress those children are making now that they are back in the classroom and how much they are enjoying being back with their friends.
The message that I have consistently received from headteachers, school staff and mums and dads is that they have valued enormously the support that has been put in place—the priority that the Government have rightly placed on ensuring that children can access education where it has been safe to do so and on ensuring that schools are able to reopen and stay open. Education is important not only in its own right, but in the way it supports the economy.
I pay particular tribute to the work of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), in leading the programme to support the most vulnerable children in my community and communities across England. The roll-out of the programme has included not just ensuring that children get fed, but promoting other activities to help to keep their education, their social development and their lives on track and ensure that they are safeguarded. For me, that is probably the most important lesson from the pandemic: to recognise the complexity of the circumstances that the most vulnerable children in our country face, and acknowledge that local authorities, which know their communities best and are generally already engaged with those children and their families, are in the best place to design packages of support.
It is right that the siren calls for a simple extension of free school meals have been resisted: they do not help many households in which the children are below school age, for example, and they do not help households which, for whatever reason, have not made an application. It is very clear that we need a much more nuanced and targeted approach if we are to make a genuine difference in the lives of those children.
Hon. Members have raised a variety of concerns. It has certainly been very clear to me from speaking to headteachers that there have been issues with the availability of tutors under the national tutoring programme; the quality of what is available has been good, but sometimes identifying the support required has been a challenge. That goes to the heart of what I think is a reasonable criticism of the Opposition motion: we need to ensure that we have qualified, experienced people able to do what they need to do to help children to get their lives back on track. A motion that is about simply spending more money, not thinking about where we will identify those people and get them into jobs to make the difference that they need to make, is not worth the paper it is written on. We need to ensure that we can demonstrate that anything debated by this House is credible.
It is clear, once again, that the role of local authorities in supporting schools has been critical. I certainly would not criticise regional schools commissioners, but it is  clear that the scale of their task and their inability to engage at a micro-local level, particularly with directors of public health, has been an inhibiting factor in the response that schools have been asked to produce to the pandemic crisis. We need to ensure that we look at how local authorities interact with all the schools for which they are a champion in their local area, so that in future we have the resilience that is required at a local level. Especially as we look at a more localised approach as we unlock the country in June, we need to ensure that that capacity is in place locally.
I will finish on what I think has been a really positive decision by my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to invest significantly in the professional development of our early years workforce. As all parents of young children know, it can make a transformational difference, especially to the lives of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, if they can access high-quality early education. The structure in place with tax-free childcare and free hours has enabled the capacity to be created for people to access. It is absolutely welcome that the Government have made the decision to invest a very significant sum—approximately £150 million—in the development of that workforce, so that we can ensure for future generations that we have the top-quality staff in place who can give children the very best start in life. That is an example of practical action: not just promising money, but choosing to do the thing that will make the difference in a child’s life.

Tom Hunt: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The pandemic has been immensely challenging, not just for all the young people at school in Ipswich, but for the teaching staff. One way or another it has been challenging, but no one child’s experience has been the same, so it is very important that we steer clear of generalisations. However, it does seem that those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have been hit the hardest by what has happened and have probably lost out the most.
In Ipswich, we benefited from being a pilot scheme for the holiday activities and food programme; we have also been an opportunity area for some time. That has been extended, which is good news—it has done some really brilliant work and has been welcomed by all teaching staff in my constituency.
With regard to the Government’s position, it is quite clear that any interventions that they make need to be evidence-based. Like many colleagues who have spoken today, I sympathise with the idea of extending the school day, but we need to figure out how we are going to do that so that we do not place even more burdens, pressure and demands on teaching staff, who have had an incredibly difficult pandemic, or on young people who are under pressure to catch up. I would like to see more money on the way when it comes to a new spending review. One of the reasons I supported the Government on the international aid cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was that I would like to see more money going into education. Ultimately, the Labour party does not have a clear strategy for how it will pay for what it says it wants. When it comes to any key spending decision, it says, “Yes, more money, more money.” Same old Labour: absolutely no strategy for how it is going to pay for it.
I would like to talk briefly about special educational needs. You know—sorry, I should not use that word here. I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am getting there. You know—[Laughter.] I care very much about special educational needs; I spoke about it in my maiden speech. Not everything is about money when it comes to improving special educational needs provision, but a lot is about money. The reality is that a huge number of young people in Suffolk are being failed and let down by the status quo, and I will speak to that, because the stakes could not be higher.
On the Education Committee, we have just launched an inquiry into prison education. It is thought that 35% of those in prison have some kind of special need. Actually, the figure will be far higher, because we are not diagnosing properly every prisoner going into the system. The reality is that the figure could even be higher than 50%. Is that not shameful? Is that not something that we should be ashamed of—the fact that that many prisoners are individuals who have special needs that have not been met? When we come to making the justification for ploughing in what I think is a lot more money into special educational needs, we need to explain that to the public. Yes, it is morally the right thing to do to get the potential out of these individuals, but, even thinking about it in a hard-headed way, it will save us money down the trail.
The other thing is that if you are an unconventional thinker, if you are a creative thinker, who feels that the system is failing you, you are more likely to turn against that very system. There is nothing more depressing in a class than looking in the eyes of a young child who has special educational needs that are not being met; their eyes are glazed over and they are not engaged. There are steps that we can take. We can look at teacher training. We can raise awareness of things such as autism, dyspraxia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, because there is a big problem there. As a dyspraxic, I can say that the understanding of dyspraxia, as an article recently said, is in the “dark ages”. Yes, awareness and teacher training are part of it, but a lot of it will have to be money and investment to ensure that those unconventional, creative thinkers get that tailored tuition as much as they possibly can to unlock their potential. The stakes could not be higher, because, quite frankly, so many have ended up in the criminal justice system, a nuisance to society, costing us money. This is not just about making them average achievers. Given the right support and the right funding, young people with special educational needs can weaponise their disability as unconventional and creative thinkers, and they can make more of a contribution to society than almost anyone else.
My plea would be this: I very much understand the position that the Government are in—I believe that the Labour party is only looking to score political points—but when it comes to this medium to long-term debate about funding, let us level with the country about how high the stakes are when it comes to how we fund special educational needs. We cannot let down our young people with special needs.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division. On the motion relating to the remuneration of the Information Commissioner, the Ayes were 369, the Noes were 2, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Naseem Shah: I start by referring to the Daily Mail, which ran an absurd story—a wholly inaccurate story—about places such as Bradford, which is my city, being a no-go area. It was based on a recently published book. Today, I want to set the record straight: Bradford is a young, energetic and diverse city where around 85 languages are spoken. Bradford is also the youngest city in Europe. Recent research shows that, on the list of the 20 most entrepreneurial UK cities, Bradford comes second.
In 2020, 4,786 new businesses were created in the district, and that continues, but, just like any other city, we have our challenges. The past 15 months have been extremely difficult on all fronts. It breaks my heart to say that this Government have treated our children as an afterthought. Throughout the pandemic, and even now, they are neglecting them when it comes to the education recovery fund, which simply does not go far enough.
Sir Kevan Collins’s resignation was a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ catch-up plan, which is failing to deliver for our children. The Government threw out his ideas and expertise as soon as it became about the need to stump up the cash. We know that early-years education needs further investment, but the Government choose not to do anything about it. Over the last decade, the Government have slashed further education funding by a third and the adult education budget by half. Colleges have been allocated funds only to hold small group tutoring for the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-old students with no one-to-one support.
The Government recently admitted that there had been an underspend of £2.1 billion in the apprenticeship levy fund since May 2019. Labour proposes a wage subsidy incentive to create 85,000 new apprenticeships from last year’s underspend. The Government must now look at our plans for giving our next generation their first step on the ladder.
Recent data shows that 32,260 people in Bradford claim unemployment benefit. Of those claimants, 6,880 are aged between 18 and 24. Young people are desperate for jobs. Meanwhile, the kickstart scheme has created jobs for only 3% of unemployed young people nearly a year after it was announced. The Government must work with us to deliver our jobs promise, which guarantees jobs, training or education and placements for all young people who are out of work for over six months.
Youth clubs are the beating heart of our communities, working day in, day out to empower and advocate for young people, but youth services are on the brink of collapse due to Government cuts of 73% since 2010. The Government must now deliver their manifesto commitment to give £500 million to youth services.
Despite this extremely difficult period and lack of funding, Bradford Council has worked extremely hard to support children and young people through a range of services. That can carry on only with the right resources and funding. For example, if we look at exclusion from school, we see that fewer than 10 children were excluded in 2018-19 in the whole of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in England, several hundred children were excluded.
Poverty plays a big part in children’s learning. There is no poverty of aspiration in Bradford West or in the whole of my city, but there is poverty, and it is growing. I really want to showcase Bradford. I invite the Minister  to Bradford to see at first hand what the city has to offer. I ask her to commit that the Government will ensure that cities such as Bradford are not neglected and left behind. I appreciate and value the opportunities fund and the increase in it, but that is not enough for the youngest city in the whole of Europe and I would welcome the Minister’s response to my invitation so that I can demonstrate what I mean. I invite her to meet young people, the teachers who have done what they have done during the pandemic and the people who have shortcomings in child and adolescent mental health services, and to put real investment where we need it.
If we want generation covid to thrive for the future of our country, the Government have some serious commitments to make, and I would welcome an intervention for Bradford from the Minister.

Flick Drummond: I pass on my thanks to Sir Kevan Collins, who was kind enough to read my One Nation education paper and give me some of his valuable time to talk through the extended school day and my views on assessment. I hope that we will see more of his impact, with his ideas implemented in the next few months, not least in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.
Covid has given us the opportunity to revamp our education system and the school day. Brexit has given us the opportunity to look at what skills we need within our population to maximise our new economy for the global world. I therefore believe it is time to look at our education system; to look at the extended school day in the round, our assessment system, which is no longer fit for purpose, our teacher training and child pedagogy, and what we teach. We must finally put an effective careers service in schools, which will help guide our young people in this new world.
I am pleased that the Government support an extended school day, and it was good to hear so much support from Back Benchers who spoke before me. I agree with the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday that it is extraordinary and inefficient that some schools send their pupils home at 2.30, leaving empty school buildings, yet others are open until 5 pm.
I recently read about Fulham Boys School in west London, where the school day goes until 5 pm, Monday to Thursday, and the normal 3.20 pm on Friday. The extra hours are spent on additional activities such as sport, music, drama, public speaking, coding and cooking. I would personally add community work, including the National Citizen Service, and a comprehensive personal, social, health and economic education programme in every school. That is a proper education in my eyes, one that develops the whole child.
With so many parents working full time, this must be the way forward, even if it means voluntary contributions from those parents who can afford to contribute, which is exactly what happens at Fulham Boys School, but it must not be to the disadvantage of those who cannot afford it. Imagine what well-rounded individuals we could produce, with the skills that employers want.
I also welcome the Government’s £3 billion commitment to catching up through targeted interventions. I have seen the impact of past initiatives as a school inspector and school governor, and it makes a huge difference. We should be focusing on that now and in the future.
I am delighted that we have provided an extra £400 million for half a million training and development opportunities, including for those in early years settings. We need to look again at teacher training across the board, at the ways into teaching and at their continued professional development. Teachers have been incredible during the pandemic, with teachers having to learn new techniques, sometimes teaching both in the classroom and online, as well as preparing for those who do not have access to computers. Our children deserve the best training and the best teachers.
Education is not just about structures or buildings; it is about teachers and leadership. Everyone remembers the good teachers and the bad, so this must be a major focus. We are fortunate enough to have excellent teachers in Meon Valley, and I want to thank them once again for all they have done over the last year.
Finally, I thank the Government for the extended holiday activity scheme through the summer. Many children in Meon Valley have benefited from this scheme over the past few years, and I am very pleased that it is continuing.

Jack Dromey: Erdington may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in England. According to the Government’s own figures, 42.5% of children in the city of Birmingham are now growing up in poverty, a total of 116,552.
In Erdington, child poverty has increased by 6.6% since 2015, with 10,000 children now living in poverty. I have seen at first hand the heartbreaking, devastating consequences for young people. A generation of young children is being scarred by poverty and hunger, which holds them back at school. There are, no doubt, some welcome developments on funding, but the truth of the matter is that schools do not have the resources available to combat the financial aftershocks of the pandemic rightly described as
“the greatest peacetime threat to education in living memory”.
The irreversible scarring of a generation is now a serious possibility, the devastating consequence of poverty and covid, and that is why the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins as the Government’s education recovery commissioner was so important and, indeed, so welcome, and why the information that emerged on his proposed education recovery plan was so unanimously welcomed by the sector.
If ever there was a city or, indeed, a constituency in need of a properly funded long-term recovery plan, Birmingham would surely qualify. Instead, what we saw last week was a derisory offer from the Government that satisfied no one, least of all the commissioner. He did the noble thing and resigned, not least because what the Government did flies in the face of assurances given by the Prime Minister that no child will be left behind as a consequence of the covid crisis.
According to the Education Policy Institute, the latest spending commitment means the Government have committed to £310 per pupil, compared with the equivalent total funding of £2,500 in the Netherlands. To add insult to injury, the Government have refused to confirm that they will extend free school meals over the summer period or make the £20 universal credit uplift permanent beyond September, both of which will hit the disadvantaged hardest—so much for levelling up.
This is against the backdrop of a wider crisis in schools funding, which I see, for example, in maintained nursery schools. I am proud to say that, four years ago, we started a campaign in Erdington that became nationwide to win transitional funding for nursery schools, to avoid what would have been a complete catastrophe as a consequence of a new funding formula. Four years on, however, nursery schools still do not have secure, long-term funding. They are being subjected to a year-by-year settlement, the consequence of which is that they simply cannot plan ahead, and more and more nursery schools—partly due to the impact of the pandemic—are seeing a loss of income through that, which is pushing many of them into deficit. They are having to cut back on the services they provide, and some are threatened with closure.
There is a wider scenario, one aspect of which is nursery schools, which are the jewels in the crown of early years provision. I see that at first hand in my constituency, in Castle Vale Nursery School, Featherstone Nursery School, Osborne Nursery School and Marsh Hill Primary School—wonderful institutions giving young children the best possible start in life.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the school staff, and the headteachers in particular. I have seen just how tough it is for them on the frontline, dealing with the immediate financial pressures and utterly determined that they will give children the best possible start in life. Led by Vicky Nussey, the headteacher of Paget Primary School, the primary and secondary schools in Erdington are first-class—they are exemplary in what they do—but their message is crystal clear: if they are to continue to give young people the best possible start in life and give joy to the parents and grandparents who see the lives of their children and grandchildren transformed, their voice must be heard by the Government. What the Government have done is simply not enough. We need more investment in our schools, because the future of a whole generation depends upon it.

Ben Everitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in this important debate. The pandemic has been a mental as well as a physical health crisis. It is not enough simply to treat people who have the virus, as crucial as that is; we also need to focus, as we have, on protecting everyone’s emotional and physical wellbeing, and of course, children are at the top of our list. Children need the structure of a school day to help them learn and develop. Members across the House will be acutely aware that the Government prioritised reopening schools as soon as it was safely possible to do so. Children’s education was our priority then, and it is our priority now. Which party was it that sided with the unions when they tried to keep the schools closed? It was not the Conservative party.
How wonderful it is to see schools open. I had the pleasure of visiting virtually a year 5 group at Haversham Village School a few weeks ago, and they asked me some excellent questions, especially about space. It is the Conservative Government who got schools like Haversham Village School open, and it is the Conservative Government who have delivered more than £3 billion in catch-up support so far.
This debate is centred on the latest tranche of the education recovery plan, worth £1.4 billion. Included in that package is £1 billion-worth of tutoring courses,  which is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) said in his excellent speech, just one course of high-quality tutoring has been proven to boost the attainment of disadvantaged pupils by three to five months, so it is entirely right that we target this at the most disadvantaged children first. If I understood the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) correctly, I think she was asking for this to be targeted at the most disadvantaged children first, which is exactly what we are doing. That is what levelling up in education means and why we are investing more than £1 billion to deliver 6,000,000 15-hour tutoring courses for those disadvantaged pupils. We are expanding the 16 to 19-year-old tuition fund, targeting key subjects such as maths and English. We are investing in teachers, with £400 million to make sure that they have the resources, skills and training they need to support the children they teach. We are providing £253 million to expand the existing teacher training and development scheme, giving half a million teachers the chance to access world-leading training. There is £153 million to provide early years practitioners with evidence-based professional development.
This is simply the latest stage of the ongoing support that is being provided to children, schools, teachers, headteachers and governors as we build back better in education. We have already announced £700 million of catch-up funding to help children catch up on the learning they have lost during the pandemic. The summer school programme for primary and secondary schools includes additional clubs and activities. The structure that children need to learn and thrive is so important for their mental and physical health, as well as for their educational progress. We have already invested £200 million in expanding the existing statutory programme to boost catch-up learning. Of course, in the previous financial year there was the £1 billion educational covid catch-up plan to help schools provide tailored support. Crucially, headteachers have been given the discretion to make interventions where they are needed most.
The real heroes during this pandemic have been the parents, schools, teachers, headteachers and governors. I know at first hand how hard parents have worked to home-school children. The Government have consistently prioritised schools, put children and young people first and invested in the education and wellbeing of pupils.

Marie Rimmer: I pay tribute to the teachers and headteachers in St Helens and Whiston for their work during this dreadful pandemic and for the care and support that they have given to their pupils. In fact, teachers talk about how safe they felt—how protected they were by their headteachers.
I heard the pride of the head of a special nursery for special children with special needs. She said, “There have been some positives, Marie.” There was the little boy who took his own coat off and hung it up on the hook because mothers could not come into the nursery— the children had to come in by themselves because of the isolation and the care taken.
I have been told about the pride taken in the children, but also the horrors of the child who could not lift up their head and face people. So much work goes in—I was a governor for more than 40 years in my time, and I have seen the commitment that teachers put in for all  ages. I do not come from a well-educated family myself, but the teachers have so much commitment, compassion, passion and care for our children. They are safeguarding our children as well as teaching.
It is not just the children; schools take care of the families, too. I was told of a mother who came in and was hanging around because they did not have the paper and pencils so that the kiddie could work at home. She went to school to explain, so a special blue bag was provided for those parents who needed it, to give them the little that they could not afford.
People who had not been employed for two years previously did not get furlough money—they were not entitled to it. People who were on zero-hours contracts did not have the stamps and they did not get the money. They turned to the schools for help, as well as to the councils. All the teachers and headteachers praised the support that they got from local authorities.
A well-rounded education is the greatest gift that a child can receive. As a society and country, we should take pride in ensuring that our children receive the skills, knowledge, education and confidence they need to navigate themselves through the uncertainties in life. Over the past 15 months, children’s education has been disrupted in a way that I have never seen in my lifetime, and as I was born shortly after the second world war—not the first—that is saying something. I have been truly humbled to listen to the headteachers, teachers and parents who have spoken to me during this pandemic about the care and compassion that has been given by schools. Children of all ages have missed out on the hours of in-person learning—I stress that it is in-person learning—that our excellent teachers provide. There have been times when the extra teaching provision did not turn up, or the IT that was supposed to go to those who needed it most—such as in Knowsley, one of the most deprived areas—was taken away from them.
Education is vital to the lives of those young people and to the future of our country. Investing in young people is investing in our country’s future. The children of today are our greatest future asset. They will be paying off the coronavirus debt for decades, as they are still paying for the global financial crisis and austerity, which more or less robbed them of all the youth services and libraries. They have suffered from the lack of contributions to the voluntary sector, and I praise the people in the voluntary sector and the community who have come out to help during this pandemic.
It makes no sense to cheap out on these children’s future. It makes no sense to cheap out on the whole country. Society, not just the pupils, benefits from the investment provided to education. The Government’s supposed catch-up plan fails to live up to its name; it is about one tenth of the recommended size. Their own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, resigned over the plan. He accused the Government of taking a “half-hearted approach” to the problem. Perhaps after Marcus Rashford’s school meals saga, this comes as no real surprise. The Government need to get this right or they will create a lost generation. Hundreds of thousands of children in our country will feel the impact of this Government’s error for decades to come.
Inequalities have been exposed by the coronavirus. We know the areas that need levelling up; they have felt the brunt. The Government have talked a lot about their levelling-up agenda, yet they fail the country by  skimping on education provision. Under the Government’s plan, the very areas that they are promising to level up will suffer the worst. Every child must be valued and supported based on their needs, and the funding provided must follow those needs.

Nicholas Fletcher: Attitude—that is what I want to talk about today. More specifically, I want to talk about having the right one. I believe that the Opposition have the wrong attitude. In fact, if I were writing the Opposition’s school report, I would mark their attainment as “poor”. The poor attitude of the Opposition is something that my constituents have noticed over the past year and a half. Why? Well, rather than constructively scrutinising the Government, the Opposition instead seek to undermine and demoralise every Department. Today, they are doing so with the Department for Education. I hope they realise that when they do that, the only outcome is to dishearten teachers and pupils, and I know that from speaking to individuals in schools across Don Valley.
If Opposition Members and their party spin doctors want to carry on like this, so be it, yet I implore the Opposition to think just for one moment about what they are doing. They are saying to our children that they will not do well because of the Government, that they did not get their apprenticeship or university place because of the Government, and that they do not have the career they wanted because of the Government. Let me tell the House that by promoting this attitude, the Opposition are fuelling emotions of helplessness and promoting a culture where young people believe that they will get nowhere, yet I want to tell the pupils in my schools that you can have an excuse, or you can do well. You can have an excuse, or you can work hard to get an apprenticeship or a dream university place. You can have an excuse, or you can have a great career. This is a wonderful, dynamic country and, ultimately, your future is in your hands.
Yes, more money is always needed, which is why I thank the Government for the money that they have spent over the last 18 months and the further £1.4 billion in catch-up funding that was announced last week. I thank them for the new school that is being built in Hatfield, Doncaster. I thank them for all the laptops that they have issued, as these all help massively. I thank them for the food activity programmes, as, again, those have helped thousands of children in Don Valley. But if I have the option of a school with more money or a school with a can-do attitude, I know what I would rather have.
Between the millennium and 2010, England fell in the league tables for English, science and maths under a Labour Government, and from what I have heard so far from the Opposition Front Benchers, I am not surprised that that is the case. What children need more than anything else is great teachers and headteachers, and I am pleased that I have many in my constituency. I believe that they need an MP who champions them at every opportunity and plays an active part in speaking to their pupils. I do not believe that teachers and pupils need MPs who grandstand in this Chamber on motions that will achieve nothing other than a few likes on a social media account and a percentage point swing in  an opinion poll. Such actions just prove to my constituents that they made the right choice at the last election, and that by making that choice, they will not be left behind any longer.
Finally, I say this to all my local parents: I know it is tough after a long day at work, and that long division might not be your strong point, but sitting down with your kids to watch a Bitesize tutorial is the best thing you can do. It will pay dividends for your children and pay dividends for your relationship with them, too. Having the right attitude towards your children’s teachers and school will also make all the difference, so back your teachers and your head. This will ensure that your children have the right attitude, not just an excuse. That way, our children will grasp life’s opportunities so that they can have the future they deserve.

Rosie Winterton: In order to ensure that we get everybody in, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

Richard Burgon: No one seriously thinks that the Government’s education catch-up plan is adequate: not teachers, not parents and not pupils. Some Conservative MPs do, of course, but the Government’s now former education recovery commissioner certainly does not. I suspect that even some Conservative Members would privately admit that it is nowhere near enough, because these plans represents just a tenth of what the Government know is required to get our children’s education back on track. They know what is needed, yet they refuse to deliver. What is needed is proper investment in our children’s futures: breakfast clubs, mental health support, extracurricular activities and small group tutoring for all who need it. That is what Labour would be doing.
Just like with our national health service and with our care system, the problems started years before this pandemic. Our schools went into this crisis after a decade of Conservative cuts. School spending has been slashed so much that spending per pupil will remain lower in real terms in 2023 than it was 13 years earlier, in 2010. That is a lost decade of funding for our kids’ education. Youth services have been decimated, with funding cut by three quarters since 2010. The Tories had a choice and, with these cuts, they chose to rob working-class kids of their futures.
The funding allocated for education recovery is truly miserly, with less than £1 for each week that kids were out of school. The cost of the catch-up plan is about the same amount that the eat out to help out scheme cost in a month last summer. We are one of the richest countries on the planet, and during the pandemic UK billionaires increased their wealth by over £106 billion, yet we have 4.3 million children growing up in poverty. We have thousands of children relying on emergency food bank parcels each day, and we have 1.7 million children from low-income families who do not get the free school meals they need all year round. It really is absolutely shameful.
The truth is that a social emergency is facing children and families in this country. It is a fact that more than 11,000 children in my constituency of Leeds East live in poverty. That is more than half, and it has gone up year after year under successive Conservative Governments,  so forgive me, but when I hear Conservative MPs and Ministers talking about levelling up, I just do not believe them. I would love the Education Secretary to come to east Leeds, to the gates of schools such as Parklands Primary School in Seacroft or Bankside Primary School down in Harehills, and explain to the parents, to their face, why their children’s catch-up is worth a measly quid for each week of normal education that they have lost. What kind of money has been spent at Eton? You can bet your bottom dollar that it is more than £1 extra per week. I ask myself this question: for all the rhetoric, for all the talk of levelling up, if it is not good enough for pupils at Eton, why the hell do this Government think it is good enough for working-class kids in my constituency in east Leeds?
The truth is simple. Strip away the Government’s rhetoric, face the facts and forget the censorious speeches that blame children and families for the lack of opportunities that they face under a Conservative Government; the fact is, and the figures show it, that this Conservative Government and this Conservative Prime Minister do not care about working-class children. A decade of education cuts before 2020 shows that, and the Government’s refusal to invest in our children’s education recovery after 2020 shows that they have not changed one jot. That is why that we have just heard a Conservative MP saying that it is not all about money—it is not all about money because they do not want to make the political choice to give our working-class children the money that they need and deserve.

Rosie Winterton: I have just been informed that one hon. Member has withdrawn, so I will keep the limit at five minutes for as long as I can.

Paul Bristow: It is truly an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). The most troubling element of restrictions and lockdowns associated with the covid-19 pandemic has been the impact of school closures on our young people. Even withstanding the impact on their education, socialising with others and learning in a classroom environment has a whole host of obvious benefits. That is why this Government did everything in their power to keep children in the classroom and prioritised the safe reopening of schools in the first step of the road map out of lockdown.
Schools and teachers in Peterborough have done outstanding work supporting young people, either through remote learning or through supporting directly in the classroom the children of key workers, often going the extra mile. That has involved regular phone calls to families and young people just to let them know that they are not on their own and that their schools are still with them. As schools have reopened, they have been working hard to make sure that young people are not left behind. I place on record my thanks to teachers and all the school support staff in my city for what they have done.
I also place on record my thanks to Jonathan Lewis, the director of education at Peterborough City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council. Council officers do not always get the appreciation that they merit: not only has he had to put up with phone calls and queries from an inquisitive and sometimes exasperated local  MP, but he has been an invaluable source of advice for schools across the county during this difficult time. Every single headteacher I have spoken to in Peterborough thinks that Jonathan has done an outstanding job. He is an excellent council officer.
The Minister saw for himself the excellent work going on in Peterborough when I took him to the Queen Katharine Academy in Walton. We met the principal, Lynn Mayes, and her leadership team, and were impressed with their plans and their ambition—this is a school that went the extra mile—but perhaps most valuable was listening to some of the students themselves and hearing at first hand how they managed during the pandemic and how excited they are to be back.
Like many great schools in my constituency, the Queen Katharine Academy makes me proud to be the city’s MP, but it would be wrong for me to turn around and say that everything is fine and dandy. Young people in Peterborough have had to make huge sacrifices to tackle the virus. That is why the £3 billion that has been provided so far in catch-up support is important. The support is targeted at the right children with high-quality tutoring, including the 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses targeted at those students who need it the most.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) said, it has been shown that just one course of that high-quality tutoring has been proven to boost attainment by three to five months. This has the potential to have significant merit for young people in my constituency. Of course, that is on top of giving every pupil in England a funding boost as part of a £14.4 billion investment in schools and an increase in funding of more than £1.5 billion for children with special educational needs.
Schools are more than just a building; in fact, they are more than just a school and often they are the hub of a local community. We already have the infrastructure there to build back better. These buildings are open beyond school hours for youth clubs, community activities and sport, so why do we not make use of them for extended school hours to help our young people to catch up? Extending the school day could have a profound impact on the wellbeing of our young people, on mental health, on physical fitness and of course on academic attainment. So I was astounded to hear the Labour shadow Education Secretary say that we do not want children to be doing more formal learning. This is an extraordinary position for the Opposition to take, and parents up and down the country will be appalled.
Finally, I would like to say how pleased I am about the roll-out of new T-levels. These new qualifications will be very welcome for young people and parents in my city, and I am thrilled that City College Peterborough will be offering them by 2023. They are the perfect complement for our new STEM-focused university, which will transform our local area, and it is just one way in which Peterborough is building back better.

Claudia Webbe: The Government are failing our young people, too many of whom have been left behind since long before the coronavirus crisis. With chronically underfunded schools, youth services slashed and persistently high levels of mental health problems, young people are already being  denied the opportunities enjoyed by their parents’ generation. Due to this Government’s paltry support, the long-term impact of covid-19 will exacerbate the difficulties they already face.
The Government’s new funding package amounts to just £50 per pupil. For the Netherlands this figure is £2,500, while in America it is £1,600. Why do our Government not place the same value on the future of our children and young people? If the UK were to match the US, it would cost £15.5 billion, which is how much the Government were advised to provide by their own education adviser. Yet they have only announced a 10th of what our children and young people need.
Under the Government’s current programme, an entire year of funding for the crucial 2021-22 academic year will amount to around £984 million. That is barely more than the £849 million spent on the Chancellor’s eat out to help out scheme, which only ran for one month and was found to contribute to the spread of the virus, at great cost to the taxpayer. That reveals the warped priorities of this Government of the super-rich. Two thirds of the current Cabinet were privately educated, yet they systematically deny young people—especially those from African, Asian and minority ethnic communities and working-class children—the opportunities and privileges they benefited from.
Children have missed over half a year of in-person school, yet this Government believe that less than an hour of tutoring a fortnight can bridge that gap. Their measly tutoring offer amounts to less than £1 per day for each day children were out of school. Shamefully, the Government are only proposing to feed children on free school meals for 16 of 30 weekdays during the upcoming summer holidays. Do they really think it is acceptable to expect children to go hungry every other day? This is a Government who are happy to fork out billions in shady deals to their donors and large corporations, yet cringe at the prospect of guaranteeing food for vulnerable children. They must significantly improve the quality of, and widen access to, free school meals, including over the school holidays.
Youth work is a powerful tool for young people, providing on their terms someone to speak to, something to do and somewhere to go, and thus youth services are a vital lifeline for all young people. But due to severe Government cuts over the last decade, hundreds of youth centres have closed in Leicester and across the UK. This is nothing short of daylight robbery of young people’s futures. Youth services have been decimated—cut by 73% in less than a decade. That also significantly reduced the support available for young people referred by social services, reduced support for working-class children needing extracurricular activity, and reduced to zero issue-based detached youth work to young people who are at risk. It is to our shame that detached youth work is something of a relic, practically extinct in the UK. Average spending per 16 to 24-year-old in the east midlands also fell by 50%, from £134 to £66, between 2012 and 2019. Taken together, this Government’s neglect of young people is a generational betrayal, and still the Government have offered nothing, coming out of this pandemic, for services to young people. They have not even offered to return youth clubs and after-school provision they stole from young people.
Young people did not ask for this pandemic or choose to grow up as it took hold. They have made incredible sacrifices to protect demographics who are more at risk from the virus. We have a moral duty to repay their sacrifice with adequate support. That requires much, much more than the insulting package put forward by this Government.

Duncan Baker: This Government have spent more than £400 billion protecting the lives and the jobs of the people of this country. We have borrowed £300 billion in just the last fiscal year. The last time we exceeded 10% of GDP was in the financial crisis in 2008, and before that world war two, so forgive the common theme: we must have a degree of fiscal prudence, and the Treasury should have the right to challenge what it is asked to spend in these very difficult times.
The problem is that the adage that children are like vessels—that we fill them up with tutoring and they will be back on track—is only part of the answer. We will spend £1 billion towards a national tutoring programme for disadvantaged students, on top of £1.7 billion for summer schools and mental health support and already £3 billion in catch-up support. We should remember that the very first step of this Government’s road map was getting our young people back into the classroom, because everybody knows the damage that being away from their school does to children. However, children and young people need more than that. They need a varied curriculum—one of breadth. That is why I have fought tooth and nail back in my constituency to get outdoor learning centres open. There can be no better way of ensuring a depth and diversity of learning experiences. Outdoor learning centres are invaluable, and they must be part and parcel of a programme to get children back outside after such an enormous “stay at home” message for so long. We should get them learning outside in the natural environment. What better way is there to support their social and emotional needs?
I am blessed to have many such centres in North Norfolk, and the Education Secretary knows only too well that I have pushed him all the way to get their reopening on the road map as soon as possible. In particular, my constituents Sara Holroyd and Mark Holroyd from Aylmerton Field Study Centre, and Martin Read from Hilltop, have been through the most horrendous of times, unable to take bookings, and have suffered enormous losses due to the absence of firm news on when their businesses can start to accept young people back again.
I therefore wonder whether I can call on the Government to do even more with imaginative schemes for young people. What about embracing the National Citizen Service? That is a golden opportunity not only to get the outdoor learning sector going again, but to get our young people in the outdoors for that valuable and enriching learning experience.
Today, the Prime Minister paid tribute to the fact that it is Carers Week. One of the ways this £1 billion of support must be channelled is to help young carers in our society. I have talked about young carers in this place many times. As a patron of the Holt youth club in North Norfolk, I know just what incredible work Julie Alford, Kevin Abbs and all their team do for the community, as does Carers Matter across Norfolk.
The Holt Youth Project has looked after more than 50 young carers who have suffered disproportionately in the pandemic. Just imagine those children who are looking after a parent who is simply too sick to home school them. Those young people must be given the opportunity of the further support that this package will entail. We already know that young people caring for a parent do not have a normal childhood, and they will undoubtedly have fallen even further behind during the pandemic. I know that the Government will match that fund with those people in society, to help them as an absolute priority, and I commend them for it.

Ian Byrne: I pay tribute to pupils, parents, teachers and support staff in Liverpool, West Derby for their efforts during this difficult period and for the support they give our communities. The pandemic has seen the growth of existing inequalities that children and young people face, caused by a decade of austerity and Government cuts to vital services.
The Government have clearly learned nothing from the past year, as we can see in the lack of funding for millions of working-class children who have suffered through no fault of their own. The Government’s plans for education recovery, announced last week, are inadequate, incomplete and frankly immoral. The £1.5 billion offered is way below the £15 billion that Kevan Collins, the former education recovery commissioner, judged was needed. No doubt he walked away from his position because he had listened to the teachers, trade unions and parents and understood the gravity of the situation and the inequality it would cause the next generation of working-class children.
The Government have continued to ignore the opinions of the people who devote their lives to trying to deliver the education that the children in our communities deserve. In England, the Government’s pledge amounts to just £50 per pupil per year for education recovery—one fiftieth of what the Netherlands is delivering and one tenth of what was recommended by their own commissioner. We can spend £37 billion on a failed privatised track and trace system, but we cannot invest in our children’s future? Shameful! The inadequacy of that £1.5 billion will not affect the children of Eton, but it will impact the children at Lister Junior School in my constituency for years to come.
Let us touch on the Government’s record and the impact it has had on communities like mine in Liverpool, West Derby. Some 4.3 million children are living in poverty, including 34% of the children in my constituency —children left without digital devices and without free school meals in the middle of the pandemic because of the failure of the Government’s food voucher scheme delivered by Edenred, with teachers delivering food parcels and schools setting up food banks. Yes, you heard that right—schools setting up food banks. Maybe the Minister can join the National Education Union and support the Right2Food campaign, which calls for universal free school meals for every child in this country.
There is an attainment gap of 9.3 months for primary pupils and 22 months for secondary school pupils in Liverpool. The Government have forgotten about kinship care throughout the pandemic, but figures show that a third needed access to digital equipment that was never offered and half now believe that their children need additional support to catch up on education. There has  been an increase in the number of children with mental health conditions, with NHS data now showing that one in six young people in England were experiencing such a condition in 2020. Youth services were on the brink of absolute collapse due to Government cuts. In Liverpool, 86% of spending was cut between 2011 and 2020—it is unforgivable.
As I finish, my question to the Minister is simple: in the light of everything that I have just outlined, why do the Government treat the working-class kids of this country so appallingly?

Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) this afternoon.
Before I go on, I, like everybody else this afternoon, pay tribute to the amazing work done over the past year and a half by teachers, support staff and everybody else involved in delivering education in my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and across the entire country.
It is incredibly interesting that the SNP have chosen not to have any representation in this debate—its Benches are deserted. That could be because today’s Opposition motion deals entirely with investing in young people in England; the SNP may have decided to take a principled stand in not involving themselves in matters that do not affect their constituents—unlike me and my Scottish Conservative colleagues, who care just as much about a child’s welfare in Penrith as we do about that of a child in Perth.
However, that SNP principle is allowed to lapse from time to time, as we have seen on such important issues as foxhunting, in which the SNP does feel it has a role to play in deciding what goes on south of the border. So I do not think it is that. I think that, as when the SNP removed Scotland from international league tables on educational performance, it is terrified of having to defend its shameful record of supporting children and young people in Scotland.
Today’s motion talks about the Government’s plans to support children, investment in targeted support and additional funding in England, and it is usually at this point that a separatist would jump up from the Benches opposite primed with their SNP HQ briefing points—sent, by the wonders of the internet, from Murrell towers in Edinburgh—to opine to the world on how much better things are in Scotland, but not today, and why? Because while this Conservative Government are committing £1.4 billion to education recovery, £1 billion for tutoring courses to help students recover from lost teaching during the past year, £400 million for training and development of teachers, £700 million on a catch-up funding package, raising the pupil premium, eliminating digital exclusion—including £3 million for laptops and tablets for students in need—and extending our holiday food and activities package, the SNP is failing Scotland’s children.
The Scottish National party Government claim to have invested £400 million in catch-up funding and, per pupil, that would appear on the face of it to be more generous than the UK Government, but take a look at how that money is being spent: the vast majority is being spent on increasing ventilation in classrooms. That is very important in getting kids back into the  classroom of course, but it does not help the children and young people of Scotland catch up. More than half of children and young people in Scotland had no contact at all from teachers over the first lockdown, a fact not helped by the roll-out of tablets and laptops in Scotland last year being a complete and utter shambles, and I will not even go near the situation regarding exams and assessments.
That is even before we examine the record of the SNP in education before the pandemic hit, with the attainment gap widening, children from less advantaged households in England now more likely to get a place at university than those from similar backgrounds in Scotland, and the trumpeted and ironically named curriculum for excellence leading to a situation where in the poorest parts of Scotland one pupil in five—one in five—leaves school without achieving a single pass at national 5 level, and where across Scotland one in 10 children fails to meet the required standard for national 4 in literacy and numeracy.
So what is the plan in Scotland? What is the SNP’s grand plan—the ambitious project to help children and parents catch up for lost time? It is a £20 million summer of play. Of course, encouraging and providing opportunities to socialise and play and to improve the mental wellbeing of children is vital, and I actually think we should be looking towards the Scandinavian model of education and examining how the model there is based much more on putting the health and wellbeing of children first, but our young people need so much more than the derisory £25 per head that is being pledged by the SNP on this. If the Labour party is criticising us for not investing enough—that is its position today, and that is completely respectable—to help young people get back on track in England, what on earth are we to make of this laughably poor situation in Scotland? Except that it is not laughable, because this is incredibly serious.
Our Government—any Government—have a duty to the next generation to provide them with the skills and education needed for them to get on in the world of work. In this duty—this sacred duty—the SNP has failed and are failing the young people of Scotland. Today’s students in Scotland will pay the price for SNP failure. Scotland will pay the price for SNP failure. I oppose the motion today because this Government are doing the right thing by children and young people in this country. I only wish that our ambition was matched by the Government in Edinburgh.

Mary Foy: First, I pay tribute to all the teachers, school staff and parents who have worked tirelessly to educate our children and keep them safe during the pandemic.
The Government’s failings on children’s education are clear. Over 140 organisations, including the North East Child Poverty Commission, have slammed the disgraceful recovery plans, stating that
“supporting babies, children and young people to recover from the impact of the pandemic is still not a priority for Government investment.”
That is simply damning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) highlighted, the Government’s recovery plan places a value of just £50 per  child—32 times less than the US and 50 times less than the Netherlands. Is this really “build back better”, because to me it seems like “build back cheaper”?
Fortunately Labour has offered an alternative plan: one that invests in children’s education, nourishes their extra-curricular interests, and gives every child the mental health support they need. Not only does this plan place children at the heart of the recovery—it does so without scapegoating our incredible school staff, as the Education Secretary did so shamelessly yesterday. It is disgraceful how Conservative Members have been attacking our trade unions, whose members are actually teachers and support staff who have been working tirelessly for our young people and children.
However, for many pupils in my constituency, the education barriers extend beyond the Government’s miserly plan. Under the Labour Government in 2009, Framwellgate School Durham was earmarked for a full rebuild. Yet when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came to power, the plans were scrapped under the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). In the decade since, the school has grown to 1,300 pupils. Between them there are just 16 toilets. There is no disabled access to the classrooms on upper floors, while poor drainage means the site regularly floods. This is far from the optimal learning environment. Yet despite Fram School being scheduled for rebuild in 2009 and having a very poor condition report, it was not included in the first 50 schools allocated rebuild funding from the Government, and it does not know when it will receive the funding it desperately needs. In the meantime, decisions must be made on how best to spend maintenance funding without the ability to plan for the long term.
In comparison with the Government’s inaction, under Labour leadership, Durham County Council backed a £34 million investment for a new joint campus for Belmont Community School and Belmont Primary School. If only central Government would show the same ambition. With this in mind, I wonder if the Minister could answer two simple questions from Fram School: when will Fram School receive funding for a rebuild; and will the Government give schools transparency by publishing a priority list and a long-term rebuild list so that the conditions of schools can be compared? I urge the Government to accept Labour’s education recovery plan and to invest in children’s futures in Durham—and for Framwellgate School, recovery must come with a rebuild.

Kim Johnson: I pay tribute to all parents, Liverpool City Council, and all staff working with children and young people in Liverpool, Riverside, who have provided invaluable support over the past 14 months during the pandemic.
In this country, 4.3 million children are living in poverty, and in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency, 38%—11 children, on average, in every single classroom in my constituency. That is totally unacceptable. It is the legacy of this Government, including a decade of Tory austerity that hollowed out vital services, leaving millions of children in need and at risk, and my council with £450 million less to spend on those in greatest need.
If there was any doubt about this Government’s priorities, the pandemic has laid them bare for all to see. In the past year, this Government have chosen to spend more on one month of the disastrous Eat Out to Help  Out scheme than on the entire year’s budget for schools catch-up, and put only £50 per pupil into the education recovery fund. This is scandalous when £25 million of this meagre budget has been spent on a contract outsourcing teaching to a HR firm with little teaching experience—another example of cronyism. That the Government’s own education recovery commissioner has resigned over the pitiful funding pledge to help pupils catch up speaks volumes. They are still threatening to cut the universal credit uplift of £20 that has been an invaluable lifeline for so many families living on the breadline in Liverpool and across the country. Barnardo’s, the largest children’s charity in the UK, has identified that nearly 300,000 children were referred to children’s services during the pandemic, many of them previously unknown to local authorities. Two thirds of its workers have supported families in the last year who were unable to put food on the table. This speaks to a crisis of poverty and the welfare of children. It is a shameful state of affairs for a country as wealthy as ours, the fifth richest country in the world. This Government have presided over the expansion of the wealth of billionaires by 25% during the pandemic, while the use of food banks has rocketed by a third in the same time.
If this Government are serious about ensuring that no child is left behind, we need an urgent change in direction. Can the Minister give me a straight answer: does he accept that this Government’s funding pledge for post-pandemic education recovery is entirely inadequate, and will he commit today to go back to his Government and get a commitment to proper resourcing on a par with the investment made by other countries, so that we can provide an education system that supports high standards and places pupil wellbeing at its heart—yes or no, Minister?
We are emerging from an unprecedented crisis that has shone a spotlight on the struggles of the poorest and most vulnerable in our country, particularly black young people, who are twice as likely to be unemployed, six times more likely to be excluded from school and over-represented in the criminal justice system. This must be a turning point—one where our country fundamentally shifts our priorities and commits serious resources towards eradicating child poverty, improving our welfare and education systems and creating a country in which every child can thrive, for the many, not the few.

Kate Osborne: It is clear from Kevan Collins’s resignation that the Government’s catch-up plan is failing to deliver for our children. It has highlighted that supporting children and young people to recover from the pandemic is not a priority for this Conservative Government. Let us make no mistake: child poverty was rising long before the beginning of the covid crisis. In the three years before the onset of the pandemic, my region of the north-east had the second highest child poverty rate in the UK at 37%. The north-east has urgently needed a new and credible Government strategy to end child poverty for some time. For too long, school budgets have been under extreme pressure, waiting lists for mental health services have been too long, and services to support families and children have been stretched by a lack of Government funding.
In my constituency, the child poverty rate stood at 24% in 2015. That is a shameful figure, but the latest data shows that in 2019-20, it stood at 36%—a 12 point  increase. The Collins report calls for an investment of £15 billion—£700 per pupil—over three years to support children’s recovery. That would have gone a long way to reversing those figures, yet the Government have decided to go with only a tenth of what is needed. The stated figure of around £50 per child is an insult to hard-working families, schools and teaching staff in Jarrow and beyond. It is time that this Conservative Government began to wake up and realise that investment in our children is both the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do. Children and young people in my constituency cannot wait until the spending review for emergency funding to arrive. It must come now for it to have any effect on learning and social outcomes.
A Labour Government would see action and investment to ensure quality mental health support in every school, small group tutoring for all who need it, not just 1%, continued development for teachers, extracurricular activities for all, an education recovery premium and a guarantee that no child will go hungry. Only through Government delivering those things can we begin to see a reverse of the shocking child poverty figures across our regions.
There is no economic reason why this Conservative Government could not deliver for our children and young people. They have been warned that failing to help children to recover lost learning could cost the economy and taxpayer as much as £420 billion—almost 30 times the cost of Labour’s comprehensive £15 billion plan. It is time that the Prime Minister stepped up and sent a message about what really matters, because this Government cannot afford not to make an investment in our children’s future.

Navendu Mishra: I pay tribute to every single teacher and member of school staff around the country who does so much to educate our children, as well as to the important role that parents fulfil as part of the education process. I also thank all the education unions, including the National Education Union, for their important work supporting and campaigning on behalf of school and college staff. I know that Dawn Taylor and the team at Stockport’s National Education Union branch are well respected in our town.
I am proud to have not one, but three maintained nursery schools in my Stockport constituency. Hollywood Park, Lark Hill and Freshfield do a brilliant job of serving children and parents in my constituency. Families across our country also benefit from our maintained nursery school system. However, research by the National Education Union reveals that there are only 389 such schools left in England, of which many are located in the most deprived areas of the country.
I pay tribute to the hard work of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Much more needs to be done by the Government to support maintained nursery schools and properly fund them in the years ahead. As the all-party parliamentary group for nursery schools, nursery and reception classes made clear last year:
“Maintained nursery schools need long-term certainty about funding if they are to continue to provide vital services to disadvantaged communities during the pandemic and beyond.”
I would like to hear the Minister provide that reassurance to the House today.
In the country with the fifth largest economy in the world, no child should ever have to go hungry, but unfortunately, as we saw in the past year, that is exactly what this callous Government attempted to allow when they planned to scrap free school meals during the holiday period, despite many families being financially crippled by the pandemic. Fortunately for millions of children around the country, including thousands in my constituency of Stockport, the embarrassment caused by the brilliant intervention of the premier league footballer Marcus Rashford forced the Government to scrap those plans. That situation can never be allowed to happen again, which is why the Labour party has committed to extending free school meals over all holidays, including the long summer break.
I would like to say a few words about the challenge that our youth clubs face. These clubs are the beating heart of our communities, working day in, day out to empower, advocate for and educate young people. They also perform a vital role in our children’s wellbeing: one survey revealed that more than 80% of children and young people who attend youth groups consider themselves to be happy—a significantly higher proportion than among those who do not. Furthermore, youth clubs can help to combat the rise in antisocial behaviour and ease the burden on our police services.
However, youth services are on the brink of collapse because of this Government’s cuts. A staggering 73% of funding has been slashed since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. That flies in the face of the Conservative party’s own manifesto commitment to set aside £500 million for young people’s services in its much-publicised youth investment fund. Almost unbelievably, the chief executive of the National Youth Agency revealed earlier this year that the money had “gone missing”. Given that the fund was first announced two years ago, I find that completely unacceptable.
The Government have also suspended their requirement for councils to reveal their spending on youth services, leading to well-founded concerns that a fresh round of cuts may be on the horizon. After the Government have already presided over the closure of at least 763 youth centres since 2012, this latest kick in the teeth is shameful and leaves more and more young people isolated and unsupported. The funding is crucial not only for traditional youth services, but for community and volunteering organisations such as the Scouts, the Guides and the cadets.
Finally, Greater Manchester, where my constituency is, faces one of the highest rates of persistently disadvantaged children in the country. The situation has worsened dramatically during the pandemic: research by the Education Policy Institute recently revealed that the attainment gap between poorer pupils and their more affluent peers has stopped closing for the first time in a decade. In my local authority, Stockport, that means that the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children ranges from six months at early years level to 10 months by the time they are at primary school, and almost two years by the time they reach secondary school. That is simply not good enough. The Government need to urgently address this rising crisis or risk long-lasting damage that will take years to overturn.

Peter Kyle: I put on record my thanks and gratitude to every student, teacher and support worker who has worked so hard in these difficult times. I also thank the Minister for School Standards for kicking off the debate with his usual leadership skills. So effective were they that in his 15-minute speech he pretty much failed to mention the catch-up plan or the moment that we are living through. That trend was followed by most of his hon. Friends.
It was a debate where there was sometimes more constructive agreement than was apparent. I was struck when the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a passionate speech calling for a whole-society approach to supporting children. I really hope he finds the time to read our plan, because we have championed that in opposition. I know that the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has a driving passion for it too, and it is riven through our educational catch-up plan.
This is a pivotal moment: one when students and school communities across our country will discover whether Ministers match the ambition that young people have for themselves and for our country, or whether this week will be like the last, when those in government, from the Prime Minister down, made the decision—yes, it was a decision—to become the barrier to young people bounding forwards after the challenges that pandemic life has presented them with. Anyone who has played a role, large or small, in the running of schools, colleges or nurseries will pay testament to the resilience, character and sense of purpose with which most students approach their education. Even in the last 13 years, as the core curriculum and testing became myopic, funding per pupil was slashed, class sizes grew and teaching assistants dwindled, students and their teachers found ways to move forward.
The challenges disproportionately placed on those living with disabilities was covered very well by my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and, in a very thoughtful speech, by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). For too many individual youngsters down the generations, insurmountable barriers have existed. The doors to the education they deserve need to be broken down—they are not wide open, as they should be. Tackling that has been the central mission of education policy across the political divide for as long as I have known it. We may disagree over how to achieve it, but both parties have usually tried their very best, until now. The events of the last week show us that the challenge is no longer just about knocking down barriers for individual student learning; it is about the Government slamming the brakes on an entire generation, making it harder for every student to learn, capping the potential—the essence of what is possible—for young people up and down the country. This is a new low, even for the party that voted against feeding hungry kids over the holidays. For all of history there has been one great leveller: education. Yet before us is a party that promises to “level up”, but in practice puts bricks before people. You can’t level-up without giving people who are trying to overcome the greatest barriers all the support they need.
To take just one example, students in the north-west are seven times more likely to be absent from school for covid-related reasons than those elsewhere. They need the greatest support to overcome this simple but immense challenge. The only significant catch-up programme to survive the butchery by Government of the Kevan Collins report is the national tutoring programme. Overall, it is reaching only 1% of students, but, crucially, even then 40% fewer students are participating in the north than in the south. It is about time Ministers heard the truth: this is not levelling up; this is robbing opportunity from those in greatest need. Covid has disrupted the incredible effort that our students and teachers are putting in every single day. The average pupil has missed 115 school days and the attainment gap has widened by a devastating 24% in some circumstances, and this has come on top of many wasted years, when no progress was made on helping those with barriers to learning to keep up with those who do not have such barriers.
Perhaps most shocking of all is this Government’s inability to make the link between investment in education today and economic prosperity for all tomorrow. In that, their lack of imagination is breathtaking. The Collins report outlined colossal scarring to our economy in the absence of immediate, large-scale intervention. The Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that half a year’s lost learning could cost our economy £350 billion in lower lifetime earnings. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor announced a furlough scheme, which Labour supported, at a cost of £14 billion per month. He did not tell workers to wait six months until his spending review to see whether they would be supported. Individual workers and our economy as a whole needed support then, and, rightly, they got it. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a super deduction—£25 billion in tax breaks for the 1% of companies at the top. He said they needed that much, right at that moment, so he delivered it.
However, when it comes to the moment of greatest need for education, the difference is stark and everyone sees it. Furlough covers 80% of workers; the National Tutoring Programme covers 1% of students. The difference could not be more stark. Instead of doing “whatever it takes” to support students in their quest to learn, the Government have given them a tenth of what their own adviser said was needed, and shelved most of the recommendations in a report that they commissioned.
The National Audit Office tracked how much different Departments have spent in additional spending during the pandemic. The Department for Education came eighth. The Prime Minister said that education was his priority and the Chancellor said the same, but now we know the truth. The education, wellbeing and resilience of our nation’s youngsters are the Government’s eighth priority. They are all but forgotten, and the Secretary of State is all too forgettable in the Prime Minister’s eyes.

Robert Halfon: Further to my question to the shadow Secretary of State, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the core part of Sir Kevan Collins’s plan that there should be a structured, longer school day? Is that the Labour party’s position or not?

Peter Kyle: What struck me when people said throughout the debate that we are against a longer school day is that if they read Labour’s plan, they would see that we are  calling for a day that is long and full of activity. The shadow Secretary of State has called for that consistently in the past week. We want to discuss how that extra time is used, which should be a cause for considerable deliberation by the House. However, given the number of Members who stood up today to say that they do not want any extra money to be spent on additional days, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can call for anything.
The House will shortly divide and Members will have the chance to support key priorities in the Collins report and Labour’s national children’s recovery plan: a temporary uplift in the pupil premium; resources so that school facilities can be used out of hours; and emotional support so that every student can focus on the learning, and those challenged by stress in these times are not held back. If the motion falls and the Government continue on their current course, students will have more challenges to overcome, not just in the weeks to come, but into the future. Our economy will be scarred for decades as will our ability to compete around the world against countries, which, in this moment of crisis, are investing 30 times more in their students than we are. That will haunt our nation and hold back our economy.
In the weeks and months ahead, our schools should be hubs of buzzing, healthy activity during school hours and way beyond. A school without students is not a school; it is just another empty building. This summer, whenever we pass a quiet, empty school, that building will also represent something else: it will be a monument to this moment of greatest need, when students and those who support them were truly abandoned by this Tory Government.

Vicky Ford: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the chance to debate this important topic. I thank every single person who has contributed. Members across the House have spoken with deep admiration for teachers, teaching assistants, parents and our children and young people. I agree with them. I want to add my thanks to early years staff, to social workers and to everyone who has cared for children during this time.
We in the Government completely agree that we must do all it takes to ensure that our children recover from the impact of the pandemic. Our children have had a deeply turbulent time. We owe it to them to steady the ship, and this Government are committed to ensuring that we leave a legacy that underpins our promise that no child should ever be left behind.
Let us look at this Government’s track record in delivering first-class education for children. Back in 2010, when we took over from Labour, only 68% of our country’s schools were rated “good” or “outstanding”. That figure is now 86%. Over the past decade, the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers has narrowed by a substantial 13% at primary schools and 9% at secondary schools, and that is because of this Government’s continual focus on improving education standards.
We have prioritised children above everyone else during the pandemic. We made sure that our schools were the last to close and the first to open. However, instead of focusing on what is happening in our schools and our  school standards, the Labour party has been talking about the money. As a former math student, I think that if we are going to talk about the money, we should look at all the numbers.
The £1.4 billion announced last week takes the total investment so far in education recovery to over £3 billion. It is quite correctly targeted at top-class tutoring and teaching, because evidence shows us that those are the interventions most likely to make a real difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), a former Education Secretary, correctly pointed out that it is vital that we put the investment in where it makes the most difference to children. It is also weighted more towards those schools with higher numbers of pupils from low-income families, because we know that that is where the covid-19 impact has been the greatest, and towards those in special schools.
The £3 billion package is only one part of what has been invested in our children. A few Members, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), spoke in favour of extending the school day. The next stage of our recovery plan will include a review of time spent in school and college, and the impact that that could have on helping children and young people to catch up. The review’s findings will be set out later in the year and they will inform the spending review, but it is absolutely right that we consult and look at the evidence first.
The £3 billion package is only one part of what we are investing in our children. Before the pandemic even started we had committed to the biggest school funding boost in over a decade, a three-year programme of £14 billion—

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Vicky Ford: I will not, because I want to address as many hon. Members’ comments as possible. If I have time at the end, I will come back.
That three-year programme of £14 billion takes the whole schools budget to £52.2 billion by next year. We levelled that up across the country, so that per pupil funding is at least £4,000 in every primary school and £5,150 in secondary schools this year. Over the past two years we have also put record funding into high needs, increasing the funding for special educational needs and disabilities by £1.5 billion—nearly a quarter—over that period.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) spoke about special educational needs. Twenty-six of our 33 providers under the national tutoring programme can support those with SEND; 17 can support those in special schools. I visited some special schools last month. They are using their catch-up funding very sensibly to invest in speech and language and other therapies for children, exactly as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South requested. I am very proud that we were one of the few countries in the world to keep open schools for vulnerable children, including those with more acute special educational needs and disabilities, even at the height of lockdowns.
Vulnerable children are often cared for by local authorities, so during the pandemic we increased the funding for councils, with an additional £4.6 billion of un-ringfenced funding for both children and adult social care, and another £1.55 billion went to councils at the last spending review.
As we know that early education is critical, we invested around £3.6 billion last year in early years entitlements and continued funding nurseries and pre-schools at pre-covid levels throughout 2020, even if children were not attending. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke with great praise for our early years settings, and I agree that early education provides the building blocks of a child’s future. I am sure he will be pleased that £153 million—more than 10%—of the funding announced last week goes to early years.
When schools were not open to most pupils, we set up the school meal voucher system, putting nearly an extra £500 million in the school food system, and we invested more than £400 million in laptops and devices.

Stephen Timms: Can the hon. Lady tell the House why she believes that Sir Kevan Collins resigned last week?

Vicky Ford: Sir Kevan is a very thoughtful person. He worked very closely with us on the two first key elements of the catch-up packages, which is the improved teaching and tutoring. In all my engagement with him, I found him to be very helpful, especially on the elements to do with early years. I do not know the rationale behind his resignation, but I do know that, as I said earlier, we are looking at the proposals to extend the school day, but that needs to be done with deep consultation and thought to make sure that that money, if it is invested, delivers the best education for our children. I am completely confused by exactly what Labour is suggesting it will do with the school day.
We have also invested £269 million in local authority welfare schemes, including ring-fenced funding for families to help with food and fuel, and I know that many Members have been interested in that. Our £220 million holiday activities and food programme is now live across the country. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) very kindly invited me to visit her constituency. Bradford is, of course, one of the areas where we have tried, tested and piloted this holiday activities and food programme. It means that children of families on lower incomes can take part in holiday clubs and enjoy enriching activities, giving them both food and friendship.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said that we did not care about kids in his constituency. Actually, Leeds has benefited from the HAF funding every year since 2018. It has developed and delivered an excellent programme, and I do hope that, this summer, he will pop down and visit some of the kids who are having so much fun and getting food from that project. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) asked about projects for children and young people in her constituency. Well, of course, Leicester was a partner in the HAF programme in 2019, and will return again as a partner in 2021.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.]
Mental health does matter. My colleagues at the Department for Health and Social Care have put another boost of £79 million into children and young people’s  mental health, so that over the next three years another 345,000 children will be able to benefit. As the Prime Minister said last week:
“There’s going to be more coming down the track, but don’t forget this is a huge amount we are spending.”
Our skills package will also help young people to open up new opportunities. In response to this pandemic, we announced more than £500 million to make sure that young people have the skills and training that they need. Since we launched the kickstart programme last September, employers have created more than 210,000 jobs for young people. I will never forget 2010, the end of  the last Labour Government and the last recession, when nearly 1 million 16 to 25-year-olds were not in employment, education or training.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.] When it comes to supporting children and young people, and their futures, I will take no lessons from Labour. This is not a catalogue of chaos; it is a catalogue of cash, targeted at evidence-based support for our young people. They have shown huge resilience and patience throughout this pandemic, and I support them.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets the resignation of the education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, over the Government’s inadequate proposals to support children after the coronavirus pandemic; agrees with Sir Kevan’s assessment that the current half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of young people; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward a more ambitious plan before the onset of the school summer holiday which includes an uplift to the pupil premium and increased investment in targeted support, makes additional funding available to schools for extracurricular clubs and activities to boost children’s wellbeing, and provides free school meals to all eligible children throughout the summer holiday.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

David Lammy: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the unprecedented backlog of more than 57,000 Crown Court cases, as well as record low convictions for rape and a collapse in convictions for all serious crime; calls on the Government to set up more Nightingale Courts, to enshrine victims’ rights in law and to introduce the proposals set out in Labour’s ‘Ending Violence Against Women and Girls’ Green Paper; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to update the House in person on progress made in reducing the court backlog by 22 July.
As always, it is good to see the Secretary of State for Justice in his rightful place.
In 1915, Franz Kafka wrote “The Trial”, which was about a young bank official, Josef K, who was arrested and prosecuted by a distant bureaucratic state, despite having done nothing wrong. The novel chronicles his lifelong struggle and frustrations with the invisible law and untouchable court. Readers of Kafka are shocked by the grindingly mundane frustrations of Josef K’s trial, which goes on for an entire year.
As has been repeated so many times, reality is often stranger than fiction. Today, in modern Britain, it can take multiple years before victims of crime and the accused finally get their day in court. Simon Foster, the new West Midlands police and crime commissioner, recently explained that he had seen court trial dates set for as late as 2024. He was right to pin the blame on the mismanagement and reckless neglect of the justice system over the past decade. Disturbingly, he warned that the delays would put domestic abuse, violence against women and rape cases at particular risk of collapse, due, of course, to the vulnerability of the witnesses.
I do not enjoy having to repeat the damning statistics that show that the Government are failing the survivors of violence against women and girls—frankly, they break my heart, and they should break all our hearts—but it is necessary for the House to recognise the scale of the problem that the Government have created if we are to have any chance of fixing it. In 2019-2020, the number of rape convictions in England and Wales fell to a record low: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime—half the number three years before. I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State, but I repeat that, because it is worth listening to: just 1,439 suspects in cases where a rape had been alleged were convicted of rape or another crime —half the number just three years before. Fewer than one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged. The public have lost faith in those who are supposed to keep them safe: seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working.

Catherine West: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Would he agree with me that behind all of these statistics is often a desperate young woman not knowing what her rights are, waiting months for an independent violence and sexual assault advocate, and just in desperate straits, and that the House has to push harder on this Government to get it right? It is completely unacceptable.

David Lammy: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for conveying the seriousness of this. A young woman who has been subject to a rape is frightened, lonely, and confused, and feels all sorts of things, and we have to look into our hearts and really ask: have we arrived at that place where that young woman is supported? This debate, in part, is to say that there is more to do. That ought not to be a terribly partisan statement. It is a statement that we have to do better as a nation by those young women.
Some 89% of women and 76% of men say that tougher sentencing for sexual harassment, sexual assault and domestic violence would also make women feel safer. Frankly, while the Government dither—and we have been surprised on the Labour Benches by the dither—Labour has had to step in. Today, we ask Members of Parliament from all parties to back our plans to do a few things: to make misogyny a hate crime; to increase sentences for rapists and stalkers; to create new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; to reverse this Government’s record low conviction rates for rape, with a package of policies to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including by fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, offering legal help for victims and better training for professionals; to remove legal barriers that prevent victims of domestic abuse getting the help they need through legal aid; to bring in new custodial sentences for those who name victims of rape and sexual assault; to train teachers to help identify and respond to the support child victims of domestic abuse need; to repeal the rape clause for social security claims; and to introduce binding national indicators to hold the Government to account.
The Opposition’s plea to the Government is to work cross-party on this initiative. I say to the Secretary of State again, and I have said it across the Floor of the House, that although the Secretary of State and I have a good relationship, I am worried that he sees this more as partisan in nature rather than us being able to work in a bipartisan way on an issue of such importance. His whole posture this afternoon—hands across his chest, looking away—does not convey what we typically understand of the status of his office.

Robert Buckland: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misinterpret any of my body language, but the reason for it is that he and his party had a chance to work cross-party by voting for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and he did not do that. All I see from him, with the greatest of respect, is dither and irresolution.

David Lammy: I do not want to put the women I am talking about in any kind of political posture, but the Secretary of State knows that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is able to get to his feet if I am wrong.

Robert Buckland: I am happy to explain again why the Bill makes it absolutely clear that those sentenced for serious offences including rape will serve longer in custody. For those serving sentences of four years or more the automatic release date will now be two thirds—it will no longer be half, which was of course the policy of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—and that builds   on the change we made last year to make sure that sentences of seven years or more for serious crimes including rape also met with the same term of imprisonment, namely automatic release after two thirds as opposed to half. That is a longer term of imprisonment.

David Lammy: I said in terms, in Hansard, that nothing in the Bill increases the sentences for rape, and the Secretary of State gets to his feet and talks about time served, not what my party is proposing, which is increasing sentences for rape. My suggestion is that nothing in his Bill increases the sentence length for rape, for sexual assault, for harassment or for stalking; just as the Secretary of State is legally qualified, so am I, and he has confirmed in terms that while his Bill deals with time served, it does not increase the sentences for rape.

Robert Buckland: indicated dissent.

David Lammy: The Secretary of State is shaking his head; he can come to the Dispatch Box once more to make his case.

Robert Buckland: I am absolutely delighted to come to the Dispatch Box at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me remind him that in the past 10 years the average sentence for rape has increased dramatically, up to about 10 years, and the maximum is life in prison. I thought that he and I were interested in making sure that more and more perpetrators—[Interruption.] I can do without a running commentary from the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). The way in which we encourage people to come forward and make sure that their cases are heard is to encourage more and more people to plead guilty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how any of these back-of-a-cigarette-packet measures that he proposes actually amount to anything when it comes to the effective prosecution and detection of people who commit rape.

David Lammy: Nothing in the Bill is specific on crimes that disproportionately affect women; in 296 pages the Bill does not even mention women once. We need an increase in the minimum tariff for those who commit rape and stalking. The Labour party is clear on that. I wish the Secretary of State would get beyond the hot wind—stop talking about time served and talk about minimum sentences. He has been a barrister for long enough; he must know the difference between time served and a minimum sentence. It is surprising, frankly, that I have to re-educate him on what a minimum sentence served is.

Bob Neill: I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman and respect him as a lawyer, as I respect the Secretary of State, but he will know that if we are going to have a discussion about specific nomenclature the truth is that, whether we talk about time served or minimum sentences, to say that we should increase the sentence for rape is not something that can realistically be done because the maximum sentence for rape is, as a matter of common law, life imprisonment. I accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had about how long that should translate to in practice through guidance and other matters, but it is not fair, I respectfully suggest, to talk about failing to increase what is already a life sentence; that is just a matter of law.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to assist his good friend the Secretary of State, but let me just say to him that all around the common law world—in Australia, in New Zealand, in the United States of America—there is a movement to increase the minimum sentences for rape. We in this party have looked closely at what has been done in those jurisdictions. I think in India the term has just increased to nine years because of the controversies around some rape cases there in the past few years, and in Australia it has increased to, I think, seven years. For that reason, it is our position that we should increase the minimum tariff.
I recognise that there is a legitimate debate around time served, and the Secretary of State has put his position in the Bill. I recognise also that, for heinous crimes, a whole life-sentence is appropriate. Indeed, we propose that in the Bill—someone who abducts, rapes and kidnaps a woman should serve a whole-life sentence. That is not currently in the Bill—we are proposing that. I will not refer to the controversial case before the courts at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman knows why we are proposing that. I say to him gently that this debate boils down to the value of a woman’s body and how seriously our party is taking it. That is why there is a serious legal disagreement between myself and the Secretary of State.
If we do not work cross-party on this, the Government will, in our view and in my view, be letting down victims of rape, domestic abuse, assault and violence once again. It is impossible to separate that failure of victims of violence against women and girls from the Government’s failures across the justice system as a whole. The backlog in the Crown courts is at an unprecedented level of more than 57,000 cases. It sat at 39,000 cases even before the pandemic began.
The backlog has been exacerbated by the pandemic, but it was created by the decision of this Conservative Government to close half of all courts in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019, allowing 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. As the Secretary of State stares at the backlog figures, which worsen every month, does he now regret his Government closing the courts and telling those that stayed open to have so many days off?

Toby Perkins: My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. There is no way that a party that has presided over the court backlog that we have—which has a huge impact on victims, who are sat nervously waiting to see perpetrators in court and then hopefully in prison—can say that it is in any way serious about being tough on crime, is there?

David Lammy: It absolutely cannot say that it is tough on crime when victims of crime face watching their cases collapse. I recognise that this has been a very pressured time—it is a pandemic—and the Secretary of State has had to deal with a range of issues in our prisons, in our probation, in our police and in relation to our judiciary. I recognise that, but in the end, the justice system has to serve victims of crime, and palpably and honestly, on any objective measure, things have got worse for victims of crime in our courts, and we need to do something about it.

Richard Graham: First, the right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I spoke to our Crown court judge in Gloucester earlier  this afternoon, who confirmed that the backlog has been lower month by month over the last six months, and it is lower than it was before the pandemic. One key reason for that is that it uses the court resolution process very effectively.
Secondly, although the right hon. Gentleman is making a strong pitch for why he wants to look after the victims of justice, where were he and his colleagues when policemen were getting injured in Bristol and police vans were being set on fire? Where was he when the windows of retail shops and banks were being smashed and people were clambering over the tops of railway trains, endangering life?

David Lammy: In 2010, 152,791 Crown court cases took, on average, 391 days to complete. In 2019, 107,913 cases took an average of 511 days, meaning that 30% fewer cases took over 75% longer to complete. The hon. Gentleman can add up—that is a poor record, on any analysis. He asks where I was. All I can say is that I am the shadow Secretary of State for Justice; I condemn the violence, but I do not think anybody expected me to be part of the policing.
Under the Conservatives, rapists, thieves, arsonists and those who commit fraud have never had it so good. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage, arson, drug offences and fraud have fallen to a 10-year low. The total number of convictions has collapsed from 570,000 in 2010 when Labour left office to 338,000 in 2020 after a decade of Conservative rule.
It is important that we look back to learn the lessons of this Government’s mistakes, but we must also look forward if we are going to fix this, and the solutions are pretty straightforward. We need more sitting days and more court space. Labour has called for a guarantee of at least 33,000 more sitting days. We are glad that the Government seem to have listened to our campaigning on this, but we also need to see the creation of more Nightingale courts if we are to end the delays. Will the Secretary of State promise, when he gets to his feet, to keep Nightingale courts open for longer, as well as to open more of them, to reverse the delays?
To address the crisis that victims are facing, the Government’s priority must be to introduce measures to reverse the backlog and to tackle violence against women and girls, but we must do more than that to protect the public and keep victims of crime safe. More than a quarter of all crimes are not being prosecuted because victims are dropping out of the process entirely. One million victims every year are being failed by the very system that is supposed to protect them. On top of denying justice through delays, this Government have so far failed in the simple task of enshrining victims’ legally enforceable rights. The Conservatives have promised a victims Bill in almost every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and in their past three manifestos, but five years on, their Bill has still not appeared in Parliament. The latest farce is that the Government are promising to publish a draft. It is getting draughty here with all the hot wind!
Labour has its full victims Bill published, brought to Parliament and ready to go. This would put key victims’ rights on a statutory footing, including the right for victims to read their rights at the point of reporting; the right to regular information; the right for victims to make a personal statement to be read out at court; and the right of access to special measures, including video  links at court. Similarly, Labour’s Bill would include a number of new protections for victims. Victims of persistent unresolved antisocial behaviour would be given support for the first time. We would introduce new sanctions for non-compliance with victims’ rights. We would introduce victim strategies with mandatory equality impact assessments. We would enhance the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. We would guarantee the equal treatment of victims with insecure immigration status. We would put a statutory protection on agencies to report concerns on child sexual and criminal exploitation.
These are not partisan issues, and any Member of Parliament who recognises that this is the right way forward should vote with us tonight. No more hot wind. No more getting up and talking about time served or defending a record. We know it has been tough—we are in a pandemic—but victims cannot wait, and we cannot have a situation in which the Justice Department in the Government is letting down that important relationship with the Home Office. I think that might be what is happening at the moment.
The mistakes of this Justice Secretary and his Conservative predecessors were closing courts, cutting police, cutting the prosecution service and the de-prioritisation of crime. This has led to a backlog that is unprecedented, delays that are forcing victims of crime to drop out, and inefficiencies that are letting dangerous criminals get away with murder. But the present Justice Secretary’s failures are more of inaction than of the wrong actions: a failure to address violence against women and girls even when we offer him the measures to help him to tackle it, a failure to protect victims’ rights even when we offer him a Bill that is published and ready to go, a failure to reverse the backlog in the Crown courts even when it is obvious that he just needs to encourage and create sufficient space.
Inaction can be just as costly as the wrong actions. Inaction is standing by whistling to yourself while the world around you burns. Inaction is ignoring the desperate pleas of victims denied justice. Inaction is complicity. The result is a justice system that has become Kafkaesque for victims, as well as for the wrongly accused. Arrests are slow, if they happen at all. If they are lucky, victims are given court dates that are many months or even years later. Trials are then delayed. New court dates are rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed, then rescheduled, then delayed.
I ask the Justice Secretary and Members of Parliament from all parties across the House to end the inaction and vote with the Opposition today. Now is the time when we all need to step up, put aside any partisan differences and act.

Eleanor Laing: It will be obvious to the Chamber that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. Just for a change, we will not have a three-minute limit; we will start with a six-minute limit, which will reduce later depending on how long Members take to speak.

Robert Buckland: I thank the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for at least some of his remarks. I welcome today’s debate, which is an important opportunity for us to properly reflect on some of the serious issues that he quite properly  raises. I can say at the outset that we absolutely agree with him when he talks about the ordeal of victims. The fact that this is nothing new is a matter of reproach for all of us. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Will we do better? Yes, we will. Are we taking action? Yes, we are—and it is there that, with the greatest respect, I take the gravest issue with his remarks.
To characterise my work or the work of this Government as somehow whistling or fiddling while Rome burns is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Calm reflection and a look at the work that the Government have continued to do, well before the covid pandemic, will bear that out. I think of the actions that this Conservative Government took to address important issues of violence against women and girls. Many Members from the right hon. Gentleman’s party and other parties in this Chamber were involved as well—I readily and happily accept that —but it is a record of action.
Outlawing coercive control within an intimate relationship, an offence that we are now going further to expand; outlawing upskirting; creating a criminal offence of stalking, which I and other parliamentarians were involved with; outlawing revenge porn and now the threat of revenge porn; outlawing the so-called rough sex defence; dealing with the appalling offence of non-fatal strangulation—those are all achievements by this Conservative Government. Let us not hedge or make any qualification of that. It is a Conservative Government who have driven forward important action on violence against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, that there is no monopoly on ownership of these issues. I do not want for one minute to convey the impression that somehow we hold the monopoly of wisdom on all things. I think it is right to gently, firmly and consistently point out that there have been many opportunities for us to work in a joint way. There have been times when that has been done; I particularly single out the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took on the counter-terror measures that the Government have introduced in the past year. That was an example in which we worked constructively and maturely together, but I hope he will forgive me for saying—well, I am sure that he will not, but I will say it none the less—that there was an opportunity to do that again on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the Labour party did not take it. Frankly, it makes it rather difficult for me to take seriously the words that come out of his mouth about working together when such an important opportunity to work together was missed.

Catherine West: What does the Lord Chancellor say to the 44% of victims of rape who walk away before the trial, fed up because the defendant got their legal advice when they reported it but they have had zero? They may have had a very nice police officer have a little chat and ring them once a month, but they have had zero, because victims are waiting months for the independent sexual violence advisers and months for their court date. They are fed up—44%. What does he say? Will he apologise?

Robert Buckland: Having met and talked, in a professional and now a political capacity, to many of the victims that the hon. Lady describes, I say this: an apology is due, and I give that, but action is due as well, and that is happening.
The hon. Lady talks about independent sexual violence advisers. From day one of taking office, I made the case consistently that the expansion of their important role was a vital part of my policy, and we have done that. In 2019, I put an extra £5 million into investing in ISVAs. We have now expanded that; the total that we are investing in increasing ISVAs as we speak is £27 million. That means hundreds more ISVAs who will be available to support victims of crime from the get-go. She is right: the evidence is clear that, where an ISVA is involved, the rate of dropped cases falls dramatically—by about 50%, in fact.
I take up the hon. Lady’s challenge and exhortation, and I say that this is work in progress but we are getting on with it—yet another example of the action that I and this Government are taking to deal with the heart of the matter. Of course, that is going to be followed up very soon by the important end-to-end rape review, which we will publish. That piece of work has, quite properly I think, considered and reflected on a very important judicial review launched against the Crown Prosecution Service that was dealt with earlier this year, and indeed on the representations of many groups in the sector, reflecting the important views of thousands of victims of the most heinous crime of rape. That review will be published imminently, and I can assure her that it will be a full and proper reflection not only of the problems that we have encountered but of what can be done and what will be done to help to remedy the situation.
I am not going to hedge or qualify; I am going to be absolutely frank about the fact that the current rates and numbers of cases being brought to court are inadequate. They do not reflect the reality of what has been happening to thousands of women and girls in our country, and we are determined to do everything we can to change that. That involves a change from end to end—police, prosecution and the court system itself. That is what we need to encapsulate and get right, and I can assure the hon. Lady that, when that document is published, it will be the fullest proper reflection of the important points that she is properly so passionate about.

Richard Graham: My understanding from the judge of our Crown court is that there are ways to speed up the handling of the rape cases to which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) so correctly referred. One of them, for example, is making the Crown court available for certain sittings at certain times as a magistrates court, so that a case can be heard in the magistrates court and immediately moved into the Crown court. That is a way of speeding up the whole process. Does my right hon. and learned Friend, who knows far more about these things than I do, agree that there are practical ways in which courts can work with the Crown Prosecution Service to speed things up so that these cases get heard faster?

Robert Buckland: I have the happy advantage of having spoken, I think, to that very same judge myself last week when I visited our Nightingale court at Cirencester. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right in several respects to highlight the important work being done in the western region to deal with the heavy case load. The proactive work that is being done by dedicated judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and all court staff to come together to  resolve cases that are capable of proper resolution and to identify and list those cases that absolutely need a trial has been a shining example of how to do it. Similar success has been achieved in Wales in eliminating and dealing with the so-called backlog, and we see that in other parts of the country too.
That is no reproach to those parts of the country that are facing a particular challenge. There is no doubt—the right hon. Member for Tottenham knows this from his constituency experience—that there is a particular pressure in London and the south-east, where there are still a great number of cases yet to be resolved. However, it is right to say that, in the good work that is being done, supported by investment from Government, we are seeing the sorts of results that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about. He mentioned potential ways in which—

Bob Neill: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Robert Buckland: I just need to finish the point, and then I will give way to the Chair of the Justice Committee. With regard to how the magistrates court and the Crown court can work together, the short answer is yes, there will be some further potential primary legislation changes. One or two visa matters are already dealt with in the current Bill before Parliament, but I am sure that the sort of uncontroversial change that ensures that the interests of justice are served and which allows magistrates to work more in synthesis with the Crown court will be one that the right hon. Member for Tottenham and Labour would wish to look at carefully and possibly support. I imagine that it would command his support, but I will not prejudge the position, obviously.

Bob Neill: Returning to the matter of rape and serious sexual offences, does the Secretary of State agree that one key issue is that the best determinant of a successful conviction will be not what happens once it comes into the justice end of the system, but the quality of the evidence file that the Crown Prosecution Service has in deciding to bring proceedings, and ensuring, to avoid delay, that it is full and complete at the point at which it arrives in the Crown court? That is what needs to be tackled. Evidence to our Committee shows that much of the problem is delay at the investigation stage, failures in disclosure, failures to pursue proper leads and, sometimes, the failure to deal with victims, complainants and other witnesses sensitively. Is not that perhaps the area that we really need to concentrate on in a genuinely joined-up approach, as has been said?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the important early stages of an investigation and the particular problem, frankly, of disclosure. Disclosure is a vital part of our system—it ensures fairness—but for many, particularly young women, who are faced with having to give up their mobile phone, in which their lives are stored, it is a very difficult choice. It is almost Hobson’s choice: give up your phone. What substitute do you have? Suddenly it is gone for months. Your life is on your phone. They are these sorts of choices. Women should not be put in that position—it is just wrong—and we are going to do something about that. I will not open up all the details with regard to the rape review, but the House can see my concern about the early stages of an investigation.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham and other Members on both sides of the House rightly talk about the length of time that it takes from a complaint to the outcome of a trial. There is no doubt that while the court process is a part of it, it is by no means the whole part and, very often, the wait has been for many months—and sometimes years—prior to the bringing of the case into court. If a suspect is remanded in custody, of course, the courts continue to work very hard to get those cases dealt with. There are custody time limits. There was a temporary increase to those time limits that I, through the consent of this House, ordered last year, which has now come to an end. It related to the pandemic and, rightly, I ended that, as it is such a serious measure when it comes to deprivation of liberty. However, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that, in cases where custody time limits apply, the courts have been getting on with the cases in a timely and proper way.
The issue has been those complex cases that perhaps involve many defendants—perhaps defendants on bail—which have had to take their place behind custody cases and which I accept have been taking too long to come to court. I watch the numbers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I share some information with him, of course, on a proper basis—and I take into particular consideration the length of time that it takes. I truly will not be satisfied until I see a significant drop in the length of time that cases take from arraignment and charge, when they come into the justice system, to final outcomes. But it is right to say that, certainly in recent weeks, there have been some encouraging signs.

Toby Perkins: I wish the Secretary of State well with reducing wait times. That is what we all desperately want to see and that is why I am so pleased that we are having this debate. Will he therefore tell us what he considers will be a success in reducing those wait times and when he expects that we will see them come to an acceptable level?

Robert Buckland: I will judge success—never “mission accomplished”, but certainly success—when I see the number of cases that take six months or longer dropping to well below 20% of all cases. That is my personal benchmark. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date when that will be achieved; what I can say is that there is now a sustained pattern in which the number of cases being dealt with in both Crown and magistrates courts is larger than the number of cases coming in. That, obviously, means one thing—a decline in the overall number.
The Courts Service’s latest published plan is to see the overall number of cases in the magistrates courts reduce back to pre-covid levels by the end of the year. Every sign that I have been seeing over the past few months suggests that that progress is sustained and sustainable. We should pay tribute to the magistrates, judges and all the court staff who are working so hard to make that real.
The pressures that we are under are all familiar to us in the House. I look around in this place and see so few people, and that reminds me of the challenge in courts. Imagine the difficulty of running a busy court where people are coming back and forth and covid coming into the middle of it all. The work done to make our courts safe, in accordance with guidelines from Public Health England and Public Health Wales, has been  immense. We invested about £113 million in safety measures —from perspex screens right through to social distancing measures, plus the Nightingale courts programme, which is allowing us to create the sort of capacity needed to deal with the case load. Plus there is the commitment I made, to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham alluded, that there should be no upper limit on the number of sitting days that can be used by the Crown court.
In other words, the Government and I have clearly signalled to all involved in the system that all systems are go and only the inevitable constraints of the current covid pandemic and social distancing rules would hold back the sort of full-throttle progress that I would love to see. If we continue with the common endeavour of the vaccination programme—that race that it is so important to win—and continue to make progress, I am convinced that will be reflected in improved figures at our courts.

Andy Carter: The Lord Chancellor is absolutely right to pay tribute to court staff, magistrates and judges. As he knows, I sit as a magistrate and have seen the work that has continued right the way through the pandemic. What he has missed, though, is the investment that the Government have made in technology. I have been able to sit here, in the House of Commons, and undertake justice procedures for Merseyside so that we can keep the process and the wheels of justice moving forward. That investment has made a significant difference, too.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to be prompted by my hon. Friend, who anticipates what I was just about to say about the next limb of our investment, which is in technology. At the beginning of the pandemic, about 500 cases or so were being dealt with by way of telephone or remote technology across the whole of England and Wales. Last week, the number reached 20,000—just under half all the cases heard every week in our various jurisdictions.
That has not happened by accident; it has happened as a result of significant Government investment in the hardware and software so that the technology works as well as possible for all court users. We continue, through the £1 billion court reform programme launched in 2017, to evolve, refine and improve the technology. All the measures that we have invested in are supported by the biggest single increase in court maintenance in nearly 20 years—the £142 million that I announced last summer. That is further evidence of the concerted action that I and the Government have taken since the outset of the crisis.
Plans were outlined for recovery in the criminal courts in September last year—most notably, our commitment to create 290 courts that could be used for jury trials. But we did better than that: we now have over 300 courts that can be safely used for jury trials—and they are happening day after day. We published our plans for other court recovery, relating to other jurisdictions, in November. I can remember a time at the beginning of this crisis when there was a serious question as to whether the wheels of justice could carry on rolling at all, but at no time did we stop. Again, that is as a result of the application and dedication of everybody involved. The most difficult and troubling moment for all of us concerned in the system was the decision to stop jury  trials at the end of March 2020. There was a two-month hiatus, but it did mean that in late May of that year we were among the first jurisdictions in the world to start jury trials again. That was a remarkable achievement and a testament to everybody who got involved in that endeavour. Clearly, that has had a consequence and an impact, and I do not seek to shy away from the reality of that. However, I can sincerely say to the House that our robust action—the investment we made, the multi-layered approach we are taking—is yielding the sort of results that all right hon. and hon. Members would welcome: the sort of outcomes for witnesses and victims that we all want to see. Can we do more? Yes, we can, and we are going to do more, not just in the ongoing work to recover from covid, but on the legislative framework, which I think we all agree needs to be enhanced.

James Cartlidge: One area of crime that has seen a significant increase during the pandemic is pet theft, with the number of dogs being stolen in Suffolk alone having doubled. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s taskforce on pet theft. Does he expect that it will lead to legislation in the current Session?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. Clearly, the abduction and theft of much-loved pets has caused real distress to too many people. During the lockdown, we have seen the rise in pet ownership, because of the comfort and company that much-loved pets bring, yet there is no doubt that there is an insidious market in the underhand sale of animals. Clearly, there is a wider issue here that needs to be looked at, which is why I was delighted to help bring together my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Environment Secretary to form the taskforce. We are looking at legislative measures, whether they relate to enhancing cruelty laws, on which we have already taken important action, increasing the maximum to five years, or to looking at stamping out the trade itself, in a way that we did several years ago with regard to scrap metal, where there were a spate of thefts and real misery for many people. We are looking at this in great depth and we aim to come back in a short while with a report. If that means we need to legislate, of course we will do so.
I wanted to talk about victims. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is not in his place, but I wanted to pay a bit of a tribute to him for the work he did when he was in the shadow team with the right hon. Member for Tottenham. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on these issues and I respect that, and I listened carefully to what he said. My proposed way forward of having, first, a proper and full consultation to make sure that this legislation is future-proofed and fit for purpose, together with the draft Bill approach, will give everybody the chance to really bring a cross-party flavour to what our deliberations should be, to make sure that any product is going to be the result of mature and careful deliberation, so that we are not just paying lip service to these issues and not just enshrining the victims’ code into law, important though that is, but we are looking carefully at how people, organisations and agencies are held accountable. That is the big question we all need to ask ourselves. Here is the challenge for the right hon. Gentleman and others in this House: we have to balance  the important principles of independence of prosecutorial authorities and other agencies within the criminal justice system, with the clear and present need for victims of crime to feel that if something has gone wrong, not only can they go and complain to somebody, but there is an outcome they can be satisfied with—there is accountability for any failure or dislocation in the system. That is what we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel on. I am sure that, in the spirit of the exhortation from the right hon. Gentleman, he will take that away and consider the offer that I make for how we can create a truly transformative victims law.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that undertaking, and of course I will work with him on that. I am grateful that he paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I just remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) gave us the first victims Bill and also takes this very seriously, so—how can I put this?—if my boss takes it seriously, I take it seriously, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State to deliver that victims Bill. We all know that we can do more for victims.

Robert Buckland: To add to the number, the Prime Minister, too, takes this very seriously. It is his absolute wish to see the quality of support given to victims to be the best in the world, and that is my ambition. I know that it is the ambition shared by Labour too, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the need for changes, I am absolutely focused not just on legislation but on culture. The way in which we approach violence against women and girls has to improve. I have mentioned the important action we have already taken. The new strategies to be published this year on violence against women and girls and domestic abuse will help all agencies to drive the step change that we need. The independent review that I will undertake with regard to the sentencing of domestic homicide cases is a vital part of that, so that we can better understand sentencing practice and consider the need for change. In the context of some of the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman, that review will be very important when it comes to the overall impact of any changes, however well intentioned they might be. I talked in some of my interventions about the important changes that I would commend to the House with regard to the Bill that is currently in Committee. I have also mentioned the end- to-end rape review.
As the new super-courtrooms are brought into service, one at Manchester and one at Loughborough, that will further enhance the ability of the system to deal with some of the larger, gang-related offences and multi-handed defendant cases that have been a real concern to all of us who want to see justice being done. As we future-proof legislation to allow more easy use of virtual hearings throughout the process, this is an example, again, of the Government putting those who use the service first—the victims and the witnesses of criminal offences. Remember that a system is worth nothing if it does not genuinely serve the British public and create a sense of confidence that when people come forward with serious complaints, they will be dealt with properly, professionally and expeditiously. Those are the aims that I have. It is all about recovery, rebuilding and restoring our justice system.
While I absolutely take on board the proper observations made by Labour Members, I say this to them: everything I seek to do is in the spirit of genuine collaboration and co-operation. Justice is too important for us to just leave it to mere party politics. I hope that as the weeks and months go forward, we can move away from a spirit of confrontation and remember that the work that continues to be done by this Government in order to combat crime and to deal with an effective criminal justice system is never finished. I can assure this House that, with regard to my commitment, and the commitment of my ministerial team and everybody at the Ministry of Justice, we are working daily and tirelessly to achieve the goals that all of us would wish to see. Justice is beyond measure. It has been part of my entire adult life. I am privileged to be able, in my term of office, to work to achieve the goals that I think all of us would want to see reached.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you; I was rather optimistic about the time limit. The House has to understand that we have had two lawyers battling it out here. They are normally paid by the hour and so it is understandable. In all seriousness, I would have curtailed the debate, but both right hon. Gentlemen took a significant number of interventions, so it has been a full debate. We start with a time limit of five minutes. I call Ruth Cadbury.

Ruth Cadbury: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not being a lawyer, I will try and stick to your time limit; it should be a bit easier for me. It has been interesting to follow the Justice Secretary, but a pleasure to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). It was an honour to be on the shadow Justice and Attorney General’s team until a few weeks ago.
The Conservative party traditionally prided itself on being tough on crime, but its record of delay in tackling crime is nothing to be proud of. The central theme of our criminal justice and courts system has now become delay, delay, delay. A backlog of over 54,000 Crown court cases means a four-year wait for justice, and justice delayed is justice denied. That impacts not only on the victims of crime and their families, who often cannot move on with their lives, their work and often their mental health. A delayed and failing justice system also fails the accused and those eventually convicted and sentenced. We cannot hope to address the causes of crime without giving those caught up a realistic timescale for a court hearing and a decision, and for those convicted, a quick start on work to cut future reoffending. A slow justice system costs us all—failed trial dates or the financial and human cost of remand in custody and, for our communities, a lack of faith in the whole criminal justice system.
The fault of those delays does not lie with our courts or those working in them. I know, from visiting Isleworth Crown court, how tirelessly they are working to ensure that the courts run smoothly. No, despite the Secretary of State’s explanation, he cannot get away from the fact that the Government brought a sledgehammer down on our legal system, and have done since 2010. By 2026, half of all our courts will have closed. There are 27,000 fewer sitting days now than in 2016, there has been a 15% cut in the Courts and Tribunals Service, and,  despite agency recruitment, a shortfall of 1,400 staff still remains. We have had cuts to legal aid, to policing, to specialist support, to the Director of Public Prosecutions and others.
The Government may say that court delays are due to the coronavirus, and that the Government are moving heaven and earth to fix them, but it is not, and the Government are not. At the start of 2020 there was already a backlog of 39,000 Crown court cases, with a backlog now of over 53,000. The Government need to be honest about the cause of the delays and then start to address the backlog. Labour is proposing a guaranteed 33,000 extra sitting days and more Nightingale courts.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, the Conservatives are failing to protect women and girls in the criminal justice system, with record low conviction rates for perpetrators of sexual violence and an epidemic of misogyny that makes women and girls feel unsafe. Victims are losing faith that the justice system will be there for them. The Government’s rape review was announced over two years ago and we are still waiting. Meanwhile, rape prosecutions have fallen to the lowest level on record and domestic abuse prosecutions have fallen by nearly 20%. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) pointed out that for every victim there is a cost. These are not statistics, and that is why Labour has put gender-based violence at the top of our agenda, and why we published a green paper on ending the epidemic of violence against women and girls.
Finally, I want to address the issue of how the justice system can better serve those killed and injured on our roads. The issue concerns Members across this House and is an issue for the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, which I co-chair. So I ask, will the Government consider using the opportunity of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address some of these issues, including the lack of clarity over the distinction between careless and dangerous driving offences and the inadequate sentences for fatal hit-and-run offences, as well as for serious hit-and-run and car-dooring offences—and, finally, end the courts’ routine acceptance of exceptional hardship pleas from offending drivers who are seeking to avoid driving bans?
I look forward to hearing from the Government on the issues of road safety justice, on the backlog of court cases, on their victims’ Bill, and on their rape strategy, and I hope that they will vote for the Opposition motion today.

Bob Neill: I am saddened by some of this debate, because I genuinely like and respect both my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who are committed politicians and committed lawyers. We missed a bit of the seriousness of the debate in some of the party political knock-around that inevitably happens in these cases. The truth is that this is a really important issue, and both of them have elements of force and truth in the cases that they make. There is actually more common ground than one might read from some of the noise in between. I would have thought that anyone who listened to the very reasonable approach of the Lord Chancellor would say, with respect to the shadow Secretary of State, that he was the wrong messenger to shoot at.
The Lord Chancellor, like me, has immersed his life in the criminal law. Between us, we have clocked up about half a century of doing the publicly funded, the unfashionable, and the rough end of the trade. It is not that we have not seen exactly the things that the right hon. Gentleman talks about on the ground. It is not that I have not seen or experienced the frustrations of victims when I have prosecuted offences that we were not able to bring to a conviction, or the difficulties in sitting in a police cell trying to persuade often troubled defendants who have committed very serious matters to accept the reality of the evidence. Those are things that cannot always be reduced to simple statistics. Behind the statistics of conviction rates and prosecution rates there are individual cases that are all fact-specific in every instance. It is not in the gift of any Government to guarantee a given rate of conviction or a prosecution for any type of offence, because the nature of the system is that an independent jury, properly directed by an independent judge, must come to a decision on the evidence that is put before it.

Catherine West: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Neill: I will do, certainly, but this will be the only one.

Catherine West: I accept the point being made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, and he is making it very well, but 44% of victims—not 10% or 20% even, but 44%—are walking away from their day in court. Why is that?

Bob Neill: If the hon. Lady will allow me to develop my point, it is the point that I made in my intervention on the Lord Chancellor, which is that we need a much more whole-systems approach to this. The justice system can deal only with the evidence that is put before it. It is as good as the evidence that it has obtained. What is required is a much more holistic approach, with an emphasis on the investigation of not just serious sexual offences, but all offences, and that has not always been the case. I can remember when I started at the Bar, when complainants in rape cases and other serious offences often got, I am afraid, an unsympathetic understanding from the police force and the legal system. That has changed hugely. It has changed out of all recognition from when I was in practice, so there have been real changes, but also, as has been observed, the nature of the technology that we all use in our everyday lives makes issues such as disclosure all the more important.
We must not pursue targets at the cost of doing justice in the individual case either, and that balance is not an easy one to achieve or to articulate. We need to make that point really clearly and robustly. What is required, and where I hope that we can share some common ground, is that to achieve that we need systemic long-term investment in the system. Failure has been known to come from this side of the House—the hon. Lady and others know that I am not afraid to speak out and criticise my own party when I think that it has got it wrong. What I have found as Chair of the Select Committee and from the reports that we have done is that, over a period of decades—decades going beyond any Government and probably beyond virtually anyone sitting in this Chamber—there has been underinvestment in the criminal justice system. That is largely because it has never been  a politically interesting, dare I say politically “sexy”—horrible word—or politically high-level agenda item. It has always been a Cinderella service that is downstream and has never had the attention that it deserves.
Both Front Benchers—my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Tottenham—are doing a lot to push the issues up the agenda. The Lord Chancellor has battled hugely and, I hope, successfully—I will continue to support him—to get more reinvestment in the system. To be frank, my own Government, of which I was a part, took out too much at one stage and adopted too transactional an approach. More money is being put back in, but the reality is that we have to have a consensus that it is important to spend money on our court infrastructure and important to ensure that investigation by the police, charging by the Crown Prosecution Service and the work of the courts are properly joined up.
It is also important that we have a functioning court system in which there is proper investment in capital and resources to make sure that the buildings and infrastructure actually work. I welcome, for example, the lifting of the cap on sitting days to deal with the backlog. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to assure us that that will be continued indefinitely, until such time as we reach the sensible and realistic level of backlog to which he referred. We all ought to urge the Treasury to give him the funding to do that.
We then need proper capital investment in the prison system, which we have not even touched on, because if we are really to prevent more victims, we need to make sure that, as well as punishing and deterring, the prison system rehabilitates and reforms where necessary.
This is a massive topic and the time available does not permit us to touch on it all. I hope that this debate is at least a trailer, and I plead for a more consensual, less politicised and certainly longer-term debate. We need a more honest debate with the public about what our justice system has to do, what it should be for and what its objectives are on a much more long-term basis. It would be a real service if we in this House could take a lead on that.

Eleanor Laing: The time limit will now be reduced to four minutes.

Tony Lloyd: As ever, I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) had to say. In particular, I agree with him that the Justice Secretary is an honourable man, and I applaud many of the things for which he claimed credit for the current Government and the steps taken forward.
Nevertheless, the reality is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made a powerful case about the underfunding of our criminal justice system, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We have an underfunded justice system. If a person from Mars arrived tomorrow, he or she would recognise that there is no such thing as a joined-up criminal justice system. Importantly, there no such thing as an acceptable victim’s journeys through the whole process. There are too many areas where victims are  let down.
Of course, there are some bright points. Rape is better investigated by the police today than it was in the past, but domestic violence is not always. In domestic abuse cases, people get the police officer on duty, who could be brilliant but could also be massively non-empathetic. That cannot be right. There is not enough money for training our police and we have to look at that.
Really important steps have been made on the protection of victims of domestic abuse, but we have an underfunded refuge system. Women in particular, but also men, are having to travel way outside their own area to find a place in a refuge when they flee domestic violence. Last year, something like 56%—or thereabouts—of victims of domestic abuse were turned away. That cannot be right.
Things go wrong in the prosecution system. An underfunded Crown Prosecution Service is simply not acceptable. The liaison between the police and the CPS is not strong enough. I have never understood why it is not possible to have—I wanted to see them in my own local police force—dedicated police officers who work all the time with the CPS to make sure that files are transferred properly and competently.
Within the CPS, the practice of barristers coming in late on and picking up cases without really knowing what they are until the day of the trial is unacceptable. A friend of mine was kidnapped and raped, but because the barrister decided it would be impossible to prove the charge of rape, the defendant got off scot-free. No other charge had been laid—the charge of kidnap was simply not available. That cannot be right.
When it comes to our court system, it cannot be right that, for victims and witnesses—and witnesses are often victims—not only are there delays, but the process is intimidatory. That is unacceptable. It cannot be right when cases drag on not only for weeks but for months. There must be investment in training but we must also drive through a joined-up approach to our criminal justice system that says, yes, victims and witnesses are central to it, not simply bolt-on extras. We have a brilliant sexual assault referral system in this country. We should treasure it, but we should fund it properly.

Lucy Allan: We all come to this place to speak for the people we represent and give a voice to those who cannot be heard. Today, I rise to speak on behalf of Georgia Williams, a Telford teenager, and her family. Almost exactly eight years ago today, Georgia suffered a brutal death at the hands of a sadistic killer, who repeatedly sought out young victims and groomed and stalked them as he pursued and finally executed a grotesque sexual fantasy. The perpetrator rightly received a whole-life term.
Georgia was 17. She was optimistic, she was fun, she was happy and she shone with life and energy. Full of hope for the future, she had her whole life to live, ambitions to fulfil and dreams to come true. Georgia epitomised what is so good about young people. Her parents, Lynette and Steve, who I have got to know over the years, reached out to me on hearing about the release of Colin Pitchfork because they know the grief and suffering that victims’ families experience and they want others to understand. They want others to know why life must mean life.
Some crimes are so abhorrent and offensive to the moral conscience that society cannot just be expected to accept their perpetrators back in our midst. Society is being asked to forget the crime, forget the victim and forgive the perpetrator. In the most grotesque and heinous cases, why should society be required to accept that the slate must be wiped clean? Why do we insist, just because a period of time has passed, that such crimes must now be forgotten? We are in this place as legislators. We represent the people who put us here and we need a Parole Board that operates under a legislative framework that gives the public and victims trust and confidence.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his excellent team for their radical and reforming work. I particularly congratulate them on the action taken on automatic early release for serious sexual and violent offenders. That subject caused much heartache in my constituency and I am grateful for their work on it. I now urge my right hon. and learned Friend to focus on the role of the Parole Board and ensure that it has the full confidence of the public and victims.
No one can begin to understand the terrible grief and devastation that the Williams family suffered, not least because Georgia’s killer could have been stopped before he eventually targeted her. For any parent, losing a child is a tragedy from which they never recover, but to have a child taken in the horrific circumstances that Georgia suffered is a torment and despair that we cannot begin to comprehend.
I will end by sharing the words of Georgia’s parents with the House:
“To hear that Colin Pitchfork, who took the lives of two children for his own pleasure, is to be released, is an insult to the two young victims.
The impact of losing a child is devastating, this anguish is compounded when as parents, you know that those last minutes of your loved one’s life were spent in terror. These monsters destroy more than one life, they destroy whole families.
It has been 8 years of torment for me and my family since Georgia was taken. The impact on my mental health has ruined my life and in turn my family’s—there is no cure for our suffering. Based on my experience as a police detective, I believe Pitchfork will kill again, I’ve seen it all too often.
Victims’ families are forgotten in a short while, but the terror and chaos it causes in our lives goes on. It changes how we live our lives forever—we want to reach out to ease the extreme distress of other suffering families.
Please Lucy, do everything you can for the victims of Colin Pitchfork to ease their families’ suffering.
Keep Pitchfork in prison.
Life must mean life.”

Maria Eagle: I want to address the question of enshrining victims’ rights in law and discuss a particular group of victims: bereaved families and survivors of public disasters. I have been raising matters for and speaking on behalf of the Hillsborough families, some of whom are my constituents, since I was elected in 1997. On 26 May, the final criminal trial arising out of the unlawful killing of 96 children, women and men collapsed. There is now no prospect of anyone responsible for the gross negligence of South Yorkshire police on that day being held to account by our criminal justice system, nor will anyone be held to account for the subsequent police cover-up, in which police sought to deflect blame on to the victims and survivors of the disaster and away from themselves.
This has led to so much anguish and pain for the families and survivors over the last 32 years, as they have repeatedly had to defend the reputations of their wholly innocent lost loved ones and fellow fans. Despite David Cameron having apologised to the families and survivors from the Dispatch Box when he was Prime Minister in 2012 for the police cover-up, last week a defence barrister involved in the collapsed trial repeated the slurs about Liverpool fans on the BBC, and another denied that there had been a cover-up in an article in The Spectator. The very next day, an agreement by South Yorkshire police and West Midlands police to make payments and civil damages to 601 family members and survivors for the further psychological distress caused by that very cover-up was made public.
It cannot be right that these untrue claims are still made with impunity. Families should not have to spend 32 years defending the reputations of their lost loved ones. While this is an extreme case, there have been other disasters where the victims have been blamed or families have been unable to find out the truth of what happened and have been marginalised, ignored and not seen as central to legal and administrative proceedings. It seems likely that there will be more such instances in future if nothing changes.
It took the Hillsborough families 23 years of non-stop battling to have the truth of what happened to their loved ones acknowledged officially, 28 years to get correct inquest verdicts and 32 years in total until all the criminal prosecutions arising out of the disaster came to an end. That is far, far too long. The law needs to be changed to make provision for proper, bespoke support at an early stage for those bereaved in public disasters. I do not just mean legal advice. Once things go wrong, it is almost impossible to put them right. Things have to be done properly from the start.
There are a number of proposals that would make a difference, and I urge the Government to adopt them. The establishment of an independent public advocate—which, as the Lord Chancellor knows, I have a ready-made Bill to do—is key to preventing things from going wrong in the first place. It uses freedom of information and transparency—the principles underlying the operation of the Hillsborough independent panel—to prevent cover-ups from happening and to ensure that bereaved families are at the heart of proceedings. Measures in the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill on a duty of candour and equality of arms at inquests would help.
I hope the Lord Chancellor agrees that the law must be changed to prevent bereaved families in public disasters from ever again being treated like the Hillsborough families have been treated. I hope he agrees that that would be a fitting tribute to their 32-year campaign for truth and justice. As my constituents bereaved or affected by Hillsborough said to me when I met them after I was elected 24 years ago, we do not want this to happen to anyone else. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that it cannot ever happen again.

Andrew Slaughter: The Select Committee on Justice, of which I am a member, is working on reports on court capacity, legal aid and the withering of access to justice, probation, recovery from  the disastrous privatisation experiment, the long-unresolved failings of the coroner system, and our crumbling prison system, in particular its effect on women, young people and the mental health of those in custody.
The Lord Chancellor’s priorities seem rather different: at the behest of a Prime Minister who has little respect for the rule of law, he is busy interfering with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the independence of the courts—dangerous constitutional tinkering while the justice system grinds to a halt. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill undermines fundamental civil liberties, while the further review of judicial review looks like an obsession in avoiding scrutiny, as we have seen again today with the findings of the judicial review of the Cabinet Office Minister’s conduct and yesterday with the exposure of that same Minister’s secret “clearing house” for freedom of information requests: bad priorities, and the wrong priorities.
We have heard about the backlog of cases in the Crown and magistrates courts and there are similar logjams in the civil court and tribunal systems although they are less well recorded. It is true that the Crown court backlog has been this high before, but then the court system was operating at a much higher volume and numbers of outstanding cases fell quickly. They rose again before the pandemic because of deliberate Government actions in closing courts and reducing sitting days. With the acceleration of the backlog in the past year, they lack the means to tackle it. Belatedly they introduced testing at court on a purely voluntary basis. They set up Nightingale courts, but perhaps a tenth of the number required, and a fraction of the number closed in the last decade. There are insufficient judges or lawyers to cope with the needs of the justice system because cuts in both legal aid and the CPS have left a skeleton service. Victims are waiting up to four years from offence to disposal. This is a question not just of quantity but of quality of justice. Memories fade, witnesses get cold feet, victims want to move on with their lives, trials collapse.
There is a lack of urgency and direction at the Ministry of Justice. The decision to spend £4 billion on new prison places while letting existing prisons decay, and the lack of facilities, of training and education, of proper healthcare and of basic living conditions in so many of our Victorian prisons are a disaster for inmates, for underpaid and overworked staff and for all of us. The failure to rehabilitate prisoners and to reintroduce them to society with housing and employment support is a recipe for recidivism.
It is only possible in these debates, and with the time we have, to skim the surface of these issues, but the inquiries of the Select Committee and some of the APPGs, such as the all-party group on legal aid, show the depth and complexity of the challenges we face. Unless the Secretary of State starts to look critically at his Government’s record, he will be just another Tory Lord Chancellor who has presided over the further decline of a justice system that once was admired and copied around the world.

Alberto Costa: The Government have been taking strong action to tackle violence against women and girls by delivering our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, legislating to protect  women and girls from serious violent and sexual offenders and ensuring they spend longer behind bars, legislating to ban upskirting, and delivering additional support for victims during the pandemic, ensuring that organisations and victims have everything they need. I am proud of the strong measures this Conservative Government have taken to improve our criminal justice system, but today I want to concentrate on the appalling decision made by the independent Parole Board to release Colin Pitchfork.
Pitchfork brutally raped and callously murdered two innocent teenage girls in my constituency 30 years ago. The young lives of Dawn Ashworth and Lynda Mann were horrifically cut short in the most violent of ways. There cannot be any worse sexual offences committed against women than raping and murdering them. The horrific nature of those crimes has left a lasting and deep impression on the collective memory of my constituents, particularly those living in Enderby and Narborough where these brutal crimes took place. The families and friends of Dawn and Lynda continue to endure endless pain and nightmare memories.
The Lord Chancellor will recall that I campaigned and lobbied his predecessor very hard in spring 2018, at the time when Pitchfork was due to have his first parole hearing. At about that time the Parole Board made another awful decision involving John Worboys, which caused outrage across our country. The victims of Worboys were rightly disgusted with the independent Parole Board’s decision. There was a widespread belief that the Parole Board had completely failed to safeguard women’s safety and had acted manifestly irrationally in choosing to release Worboys. The flawed decision by the Parole Board to release John Worboys eventually led to a new reconsideration mechanism; the rules were presented to the House as the then Government’s response to avoid another Worboys-type situation.
The independent Parole Board’s decision on Monday to release double child rapist and killer Pitchfork has caused widespread alarm; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for referring to the Pitchfork decision a few moments ago. The new Parole Board rules have very infrequently been considered, and in some respects the Pitchfork decision is a real test of the efficacy of the reconsideration mechanism rules.
There is a strong and compelling argument that the Lord Chancellor does not need to apply the same stringent judicial review grounds in law. He is acting as an applicant, not as an adjudicator. The decision for him to take is whether to refer the matter back to the Parole Board for it to reconsider, not for him to decide the issue in its place. I end with a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend to exercise a discretion that this House gave his office for cases of this sensitive nature, and not to allow the high threshold for judicial review to obfuscate his ability to refer the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration.

Nigel Evans: Laura Farris will be the last speaker on four minutes. We will then go down to three minutes, to get as many people in as we possibly can.

Laura Farris: A point that I think we can all agree on is that victims should not have to wait. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen how difficult it is to accelerate justice. In May last year, Lord Brown,  the retired Supreme Court justice, wrote in The Times that it was time to abandon jury trials. He recalled the experience of judge-only trials in Northern Ireland during the troubles and recommended that we temporarily pursue that route.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) disagreed. On 20 June last year, he wrote:
“You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
He later came forward with his own proposal for “wartime juries” of seven people, which he thought might reduce the backlog by 15% to 20%. A number of practitioners disagreed, including Baroness Kennedy, who said that that was
“opening the door to sacrificing the precious way people in our communities contribute to something really important.”
Again and again, she has talked about the magic number of 12 people on a jury, which is what the Lord Chancellor has pursued.
I say that not to criticise any of the views to which I have referred, but because there are good, fair, sensible arguments for and against any of those options. All of them are imperfect, but all have at their heart access to justice and the execution of article 6 rights. I respectfully say that these delicate, nuanced considerations about delivering justice deserve more than the atmospherics of an Opposition day debate.
It is important to contextualise our backlog. It is striking how much better we are doing than equivalent jurisdictions. New Zealand has a population of 5 million and a backlog of 75,000. New York City—one city in one state—has a backlog of 50,000 criminal cases. It is important to look at the progress that we are making through the backlog. The latest figures published by the MOJ up to, I think, 25 April show that disposals are now at a level 5% higher than before the pandemic.

Catherine West: If 44% of the victims are walking away, the backlog is dealt with.

Laura Farris: I think I understand the hon. Lady’s implication. Of course I am not suggesting that the backlog is dealt with, but the critical point is the progress that we are making through the backlog rather than the number itself. It is right to say that disposals now outstrip receipts and we are reducing numbers, which is something that I think we should be very proud of.
I also think that there is real cause for optimism in how remote hearings have been used. From a standing start, we saw courts embracing nascent technology, and in 12 months they have delivered everything from a 12-week trial in the High Court to a complex jury inquest in Kent, all of it online. These changes are becoming embedded. In the future, we will be delivering justice in a way that is more efficient, more economical and crucially, I hope, more swift.
I would like to spend a moment on the issue of justice for women. I echo the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), in that I think we do women a disservice if we reduce these questions to a political tit-for-tat, although I think the mood has shifted a little bit since the start of this debate. There are Opposition Members for whom I have a lot of respect on this issue, and they know that.
The Government have made good progress. Stalking, choking, revenge porn and rough sex are ugly crimes that have found their way on to the statute book, where they did not previously exist. Of course, we are not there yet, and it is a raw feeling to be speaking on this in the week when Wayne Couzens admitted to the abduction and rape of Sarah Everard, but that crime did not happen because of an absence of laws. In fact, Harriet Wistrich from the Centre for Women’s Justice gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, where she said that the fact is we do not need more legislation. Her concern, which she expressed powerfully, is that the police are failing to implement what is already there. Very respectfully, when I read the Labour Green Paper, I saw almost no reference to police failings at all.
I also think that we as a House have to be honest. While young people can pick up a phone, click a few buttons and watch rape porn, we have a problem. While schools and universities, and even workplaces, tolerate or at least turn a blind eye to misogyny and harassment in their midst, we have a problem. When young people are living in families where they see perhaps violence and misogyny exhibited in the home, we have a problem. The justice system is the end point, but if we are serious about violence against women and girls, we owe it to the victims to work seriously and collaboratively on the causes.

Nigel Evans: There is now a three-minute limit. I remind everybody—I do not know what has been said before from the Chair—that if anything is before the courts and is sub judice, please do not make reference to it.

Wera Hobhouse: The Government’s own figures show that the number of outstanding criminal court cases has risen by 15,918 since the pandemic began. Some of this is a consequence of covid—a consequence made worse by the Government’s slow action to introduce the Nightingale courts—but covid does not explain the huge backlogs that had already built up before covid hit.
It is completely unacceptable that the Government are using the pandemic as an excuse for the backlog and to obfuscate a much deeper problem. For too long, the Conservative Government have underfunded the whole of our justice system. Funding for courts and tribunals has fallen by 21% in less than a decade. The legal aid budget has fallen by almost 40% in the same period. This is completely unsustainable for our courts, their staff and professionals and, crucially, for those who are seeking justice.
Rape and domestic violence cases have been among those worst hit by the courts backlog. In the first three months of the pandemic, prosecutions for crimes against women and girls fell by more than half compared with 2019. Over 50,000 women reported being raped last year, but how many rapists were convicted? Fourteen hundred. Only one in six women report incidents of sexual assaults to the police, and as so many survivors of sexual and domestic violence are denied justice, is it any wonder that report rates are so low? Repeated delays to trials not only affect a person’s ability to provide evidence, but add hugely to the retraumatisation of victims. It is literally adding insult to injury.
Urgent improvements across the whole justice system should include specific training for police prosecutors and judges on how to handle these cases sensitively. Misogyny should be made a hate crime to help stamp out the abuse that many women face on a daily basis. The Government must finally ratify the Istanbul convention, which I have been asking for for a long time, and uphold internationally agreed standards for preventing violence against women. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must not lose sight of the human cost of this unprecedented court backlog and low conviction rates for instances of rape, and I urge all Members to support the motion tonight.

Laura Trott: I think we all agree today that we need to tackle the court backlog, but I think what we have mainly heard from Opposition Members are just attempts to cast blame rather than new solutions. Let us take the Opposition motion, in which the only solution offered is more Nightingale courts. Call me naive, which Members may, but I thought the purpose of an Opposition day was to oppose something that the Government were doing, rather than to support the innovation coming from this Government, which is Nightingale courts. There is no detail on where they should be, how many there should be, how they should be staffed or indeed how much we should spend on them. Nothing at all.
A Nightingale court has just opened in Kent, thanks to strong support from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on the Front Bench, and also detailed support from the Department in terms of where it should be, exactly how we could get the right configuration of rooms so that we had the necessary custodial rooms and where we could find the staff for this important court. This kind of detailed, important work by the Department has led to us having 60 Nightingale courts, which will really make a difference and have an impact on speeding up justice in this country. That is in contrast to the Opposition’s motion today, which simply seeks to take credit for something that is an innovation from this Government.
I shall move on to other parts of the motion, having established that the first part is simply supporting the Government’s existing policy. Labour wants to introduce additional measures from the “Ending Violence against Women and Girls” Green Paper, which it produced. Some of those measures are constructive, and I think we should work together on them on a bipartisan basis, but I remember the debates during the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and that was not bipartisan; there was a marked difference from the approach taken during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which was very different in tone and enabled us to pass a landmark piece of legislation. Claims of decriminalising rape are incredibly unhelpful and wrong. That is the opposite of the approach that we need to take to tackle this incredibly important issue.
The Government are doing a lot, as has been mentioned by many already. We have the Domestic Abuse Act, and the movement in the direction of pre-recorded cross-examinations will be incredibly important for helping the victims of rape and others, as will the ending of automatic halfway release for rapists, because I think the time that rapists spend in prison is important. There  is also better protection for the victims of domestic violence. I urge Opposition Members to match their rhetoric with action. Bipartisan is definitely the way we need to go with this, but they cannot do that when they are making sensational claims on social media.

Jerome Mayhew: The criminal justice system is at the very heart of people’s trust in Government. When things go wrong, we want the police to be able to investigate effectively, we need the CPS to prosecute efficiently and we deserve a court system that provides a fair and, yes, speedy trial. I welcome this opportunity to examine the Government’s response to covid in our criminal justice system, as well as the longer- term challenges. Looking at the early stages of investigation, the Government have made big steps. They have already recruited more than 9,000 new police officers—on their way to 20,000—to improve detection and collection of evidence. They have also tackled overload in the CPS by recruiting 400 new prosecutors to reduce caseload crashes and improve performance.
However, the court system itself is a harder nut to crack. All of us who have worked in the criminal justice system will know quite how big a task it has been to get back up and running in a covid-secure manner, particularly when it comes to jury trials. The challenge has been the greatest in the Crown court with its larger trials and its need to accommodate jurors, but here the innovation has been enormous, with 302 covid-safe jury courtrooms constructed to date, as well as the famous Nightingale courts, 60 of them created from scratch. Across the board, massive investment in remote hearing technology has sped up pre-trial hearings, with 20,000 hearings now taking place remotely every single week. This is an innovation that will continue to pay dividends for the administration of justice long after this pandemic has passed into history.
Perhaps most of all, the courts system has responded to the need by recruiting 1,600 new court staff, a 10% increase to the entire service, to speed up delivery and get on top of the backlog. All this work has allowed England and Wales to be the first western country to restart jury trials, despite the pandemic. Sticking with full juries is the right decision. It takes longer to work through the backlog, but the facts show that the Crown courts have now caught up with weekly demand and started to accelerate past it in the past few weeks. The Government have put in place a plan of action and the results are showing in the week-by-week reduction of waiting lists.
There is still much to do, so the message has been sent to every courtroom that there are no financial constraints on courtroom sittings for the whole of this year, but I want to make one respectful suggestion, following the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). It is that this opening of the purse strings should not stop until the waiting list has been reduced to a reasonable level for the long term.

John Martin McDonnell: The title of this debate is “Protecting the public and justice for victims”. Young people are part of the public, so I want to raise the issue of young people, particularly those imprisoned in youth offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes. I worked  with children in care for over a decade, so this has been a personal interest of mine, and I am a member of the justice trade union groups.
The good news is that the number of young people imprisoned has fallen over the past two decades, to about 850 on average. The bad news is that it is not reducing reoffending by those individuals; 71% of them reoffend within 12 months of leaving a secure placement. In addition, although the number may be declining, the latest statistics on behaviour management measures, published in the Youth Justice Board report in February, demonstrate just how poor the behaviour management problems are in these institutions. The numbers on restrictive physical interventions and self-harm are at a five-year high. The system is failing young people.
We know that the right interventions work. If we can intervene at an early enough age, we can grow people out of crime. All the evidence points to the benefits of smaller institutions nearer to young people’s homes and communities to maintain family contact, and, in educational settings, to investing intensively to overcome past educational failures and maintaining educational opportunities for these young people.
Unfortunately, the Government’s new reform plan, to merge youth offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes into secure schools, flies in the face of all that evidence. We now know that the Government’s proposal is that autonomous trusts will run those schools, under the Ministry of Justice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to promote new charitable providers to expand youth detention, by the looks of it. The University and College Union and others have a real fear that that is simply renaming child prisons as schools under multi-academy trusts.
The fall in numbers gave us the opportunity to ensure that we could tackle youth offending effectively, rather than simply investing again in ineffective incarceration. We believe that simply renaming these institutions will fly in the face of all that is needed at the moment, so many of us are urging the Government to think again and work with civil society organisations, professionals and unions to design an effective system that is based on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration.

James Cartlidge: I was pleased earlier, when I intervened on the Lord Chancellor on the matter of pet theft, that he gave such a positive response about the intentions of the taskforce that is looking at that terrible crime and what measures can be put forward to deter it. I declare an interest: as someone who had never previously owned a dog, I was fortunate that my family took ownership of a beautiful chocolate-brown sprocker spaniel from Norfolk in February, just before lockdown. Obviously, we did not know that lockdown was coming, but I have huge sympathy with the many families who, in lockdown, desperately tried to get a pet and often had to pay over the odds. Of course, prices surged, which in turn inevitably attracted those with nefarious motives.
To give an idea of the scale, not only did the number of dog thefts in Suffolk double in the last 12 months, but a single raid by the police in Ipswich, on a Traveller site, resulted in the discovery of 83 stolen dogs. I believe that most of them have been returned to their owners, so there is a good news story there. However, my main point is that, to most people, their pet is a family  member, and I hope that whatever measures we bring forward, we recognise that this is a traumatic crime, not just for the animal itself but for the family concerned. From social media and speaking to people in my constituency, I can say that the threat of dog theft has caused massive anxiety, and I hope that we strengthen the law so that we deter this heinous crime.
Another crime that is particularly relevant in rural constituencies such as South Suffolk is hare coursing. I received an update earlier from the wildlife team at Suffolk police, and I was struck by a fact that I hope the Justice Minister takes into account, because this is very much an MOJ issue. There were six convictions for hare coursing in the last year in Suffolk and the average penalty was a fine of £142. The key point is that, with hare coursing nowadays, we are talking about organised crime gambling many thousands of pounds. One hundred and forty-two quid is not going to stop organised criminals gambling thousands of pounds.
As I am sure the Minister knows, the problem is that hare coursing is not a minor matter anymore. It can often lead to violence, and certainly the threat of violence. Our farming and rural communities feel very, very intimidated by this crime and they are spending huge amounts of money protecting their land, protecting their sheds and so on. At the same time, it is inevitable that those caught up in this crime may well be the same sort of people who are robbing their farms of vehicles, robbing their GPS systems from their tractors, and so on.

Jerome Mayhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in his constituency are so concerned about the risk of hare coursing that they are taking the step of shooting their hares to prevent it becoming an attractive destination?

James Cartlidge: I welcome that point. It just shows how much of an impact this has had. In terms of the law, farmers in my constituency are on a WhatsApp group where they share intelligence about potential hare coursing. The police are using a drone to find the perpetrators, who are themselves increasingly sophisticated, but the law that generally covers hare coursing is the Game Act 1831. In other words, despite all this technology, the piece of legislation covering it received Royal Assent a year after the first passenger steam railway came into being, and I suspect that it may be in some need of modernisation.
We have heard about some very serious crimes and I understand why there is such concern about the issues around rape and the victims of that crime. It is incredibly difficult and it is important that the Government focus on that. There are also crimes such as dogs being stolen and the theft of farm property, which perhaps do not sound as serious but where the wider impact in rural communities is still very significant. We want to see a signal from the Government—not just in police numbers, but particularly in sentencing and punishment—that those crimes are taken seriously and that at least the guidelines, if not the law, will be toughened accordingly to protect rural communities.

Toby Perkins: Opposition days are incredibly precious for the Opposition. There are so many things that our party could have chosen to  debate, but I am really pleased, and I believe that it is of fundamental importance, that we have chosen to table this motion. We need to press the Government to do so much more to address the record-breaking backlog, and the important part of the motion about violence against women and girls is also very welcome. I hope that the Government, in the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) introduced the motion, will encourage Government Members to support it, because if there is going to be cross-party consensus on this, it would be a really positive sign to see the Government supporting this motion.
As we have heard, more than 57,000 cases are awaiting court time. The measures that the Government have so far proposed are utterly inadequate to address the backlog. The chief executive of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has said that the Government need 200 Nightingale courts to fill the gap and remove the backlog, but the Government have just 25 up and running. It is not just the buildings that are needed; the Government’s cuts mean that the service employs 2,100 fewer people than it did when they came to power.
We have heard about the impact that this has on victims, but I want to ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider my constituent, who I will call Ms C and who is watching our debate. She has been a long-standing victim of serious violence from her former partner. Her ex-partner was recently jailed for the fifth time. The court heard that he is a heroin and crack cocaine addict who is also extremely violent. He has left my constituent with injuries so bad that her sight is permanently damaged. On other occasions, she has had other facial injuries, been concussed and had her head split open. On one occasion, he forced his way into her flat, and imprisoned her and held her during an appalling ordeal. Prior to his imprisonment, they lived on the same street, and alongside the violent attacks that she has experienced, he has often made verbally aggressive and intimidating threats towards her when she has left the flat or he has seen her walking down the street. He was also jailed because he was guilty of attacking a police officer, attacking a nurse at the royal hospital, attacking another police officer when the police were called to the hospital and smashing up my constituent’s flat.
The council wants to evict this man when he gets out of prison, but it has told Ms C that it is likely to be over a year before it will be able to get a court appearance. She is now facing the likelihood, after all these attacks, of this person coming back to live on the same street. That is the reality of what court backlogs mean. When we consider the motion today and think about the steps that the Government are taking, nothing is more important for my constituent, and thousands more like her, than making sure that we get rid of these backlogs. Justice delayed is justice denied.

David Simmonds: This has been an interesting debate. Clearly all our constituents’ lives have been hugely impacted by lockdown, but one thing that, I am sure, has struck us all is how communities have stepped up to support each other—that is true in respect of justice, as it is in respect of healthcare and social care.
I particularly draw attention to the work done through a project called OWL—the Online Watch Link. It brings together the Neighbourhood Watch CCTV cameras  across my constituency and many other parts of England to support our local police services in producing evidence quickly and effectively, so that perpetrators of crime can be quickly apprehended and that there is then sufficient evidence to charge and convict them in the courts.
I have been particularly impressed at how, during this lockdown period, more members of the community—in my constituency and elsewhere—have been signing up to support the project. It has been instrumental in bringing literally thousands of charges, securing convictions for offences from burglary to some sexual offences and many offences involving theft and car crime. The more that we as citizens can support each other, the better, but it is also important that as a Government and Parliament we recognise that it is not just the criminal justice system itself but the communities that we are elected to serve that can support each other in bringing perpetrators before the law.
In due course, I would like to seek consideration from the Government about what more can be done to address the issue of the theft of catalytic converters from vehicles. That has blighted many dozens of my constituents and people across England. Perhaps the Government could bring used car parts within the remit of the laws on scrap metal so that we can ensure that those who steal and deal in those parts, causing great inconvenience and cost to people, can be brought to justice more effectively.
Finally, I express my strong support for the work being done on how we improve justice for young people; I am thinking in particular of secure schools. Having served as a magistrate, I am well aware of the frustration that many in the justice system feel about a lack of sentencing options that give young people a chance to turn their lives around when they have fallen within the remit of the justice system. It is welcome that the Government are bringing forward these proposals to give us a real chance, based on evidence from overseas and the Taylor review of 2016, of helping young people to turn their lives around.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Covid-19 and Westminster austerity simply serve to highlight the fundamental problem that Wales is the only nation in the UK without powers over its own policing and justice systems. Justice is devolved in Scotland and the north of Ireland, and there is no rational basis for Wales to be treated differently. Giving Wales powers over justice should not be simply for its own sake; it is a necessity to deliver real justice for victims and create a better, safer society. As Lord Thomas’s Commission on Justice in Wales report noted,
“there is no overall alignment of policy and spending which is essential if the criminal justice system is to be effective in reducing crime and promoting rehabilitation.”
That lack of alignment is starker than ever, with the Westminster Government pushing through the law and order policing Bill, which will do nothing to tackle the violent and squalid state of many prisons, aid rehabilitation or break the costly cycle of reoffending, which is estimated to cost £18 billion per year.
With the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, Wales cannot afford to lock more people up in prisons such as HMP Berwyn, where prisoner violence and assaults on prison staff increased by 143% and 25%  respectively in 2020, or in the overcrowded Victorian-era Swansea prison, where 79% of prisoners report that they have a mental health problem, according to the prison inspectorate.
But there is an alternative. With the proper powers, we could build a holistic system that promotes protection and rights for victims, rehabilitation of offenders, and long-term prevention of crime. This would be brought about by integrating the justice system with Welsh social, health and education policy, and services alongside the growing body of distinct Welsh law. Last month’s Senedd election returned a super-majority for further powers and devolution to the people of Wales. It has a clear and strong mandate for the devolution of significant further powers from Westminster to Wales, which will have a real, positive impact on the lives of people across Wales. It is time to act and to deliver on that mandate. In today’s debate in the Senedd, Plaid Cymru is calling on the Labour Government in Cardiff to turn their rhetoric of home rule into reality and to deliver the stronger Wales and the stronger Senedd that the people have voted for by delivering on their manifesto commitment to pursue the devolution of justice.

Tom Hunt: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I regret the backlog of 50,000 cases. Of course, anyone is going to regret that, but frankly we regret the pandemic and we regret all the unprecedented challenges that all our Government Departments had to face as a result of the pandemic.
I find it interesting how I have noticed, or sensed, that Labour is trying to seem a little bit tough on law and order. It is slightly perplexing. This is a party that went into the last election with a manifesto pushing a presumption against any prison sentence for those sentenced to less than six months unless it was for rape or a violent crime. We should think about all the really incredibly nasty individuals who would have got off with no prison sentence as a result of that. I appreciate that Labour is under new management, so presumably we are going to see some changes—although it does not seem so, because of course its leader voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which increased sentencing for those who attack and abuse our emergency services. Labour voted against that. It also voted against the tougher sentences for some of the serious offenders associated with that. Labour is not trusted on law and order; it is incredibly weak on law and order. That does not mean that we do not need to get tougher, though, so I am going to talk about that.
I am going to talk about one case, specifically, in my constituency, involving Richard Day, a constituent of mine who was walking home from a night out with his brother and some others in late 2020. He was set upon and attacked, unprovoked, by a group of young men. There was a punch to Richard Day’s neck and he died. As he was dying, they stood over him laughing at him and went through his pockets and took his belongings. I have spoken about this before in this place. The reason why I do so is that the headline is protecting the public and justice to victims. We have an example of that right here, because the individual who was found guilty for that act was sentenced to four years in a young offenders institution because of his age; he was 16 at the time. He was automatically let out after two years, and because he had 14 months on remand, in about nine months this  individual, I assume, is going to be back out on the streets of Ipswich. Is that justice for the victim’s family? No, it is not, and it is something they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. Is that protecting my constituents, who, frankly, are wondering right now, is this man going to be back out on the streets of Ipswich in the not-too-distant future?
We have made some positive moves as a Government and there is a lot further to go. We need to look at the role of things like the Sentencing Council, which, as we have seen on pet theft, is so cut off from what the majority of people in this country want, which is tougher punishments for those found guilty of pet theft. Our judges, time and again, issue overly lenient and soft sentences that mean that many of my constituents have lost faith in the criminal justice system. We have to find a way of respecting the independence of the judiciary but at the same time bringing the actual sentences we see and what the public want to see closer together, because that is the kind of society we want to live in.

Rachel Hopkins: The pandemic has stretched our justice system and created an unprecedented backlog of 57,000 cases in Crown court, but the Government must recognise that the past 10 years of their Conservative mismanagement dismantled the justice system’s ability to respond to increased demand, and is undermining the delivery of justice and the safety of dedicated public sector workers.
The Government cannot blame the case backlog solely on the pandemic. Under the Conservative party’s watch, the backlog was at 39,000 even before the pandemic. As Kevin McGinty, then the chief inspector of HMCTS inspectorate, said to the Attorney General in March, the pre-covid backlog was
“unacceptable”
and was
“due to years of underfunding.”
While we have seen the number of cases soar, the number of staff directly employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has fallen by 15% in five years. To plug the gap, the Government have had to rely on agency staff, but the simple fact is there are now fewer staff, working on more cases. During that period of sustained underfunding, the Government had a fire sale of magistrates courts. Between 2010 and 2020, 164 magistrates courts were closed. That amounts to more than half of all the courts in England and Wales, and equates to 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. Even though the Luton and South Bedfordshire magistrates court in my constituency has remained open, since 2010 46% of magistrates courts in the east of England have been closed. This cuts to the heart of the flawed austerity agenda. It is all well and good to stress that £223 million was made from the sale of court buildings, but that has damaged the delivery of justice. The Government seem to know the price of everything but not its value.
Those seeking justice are now looking at waits of up to four years for their court trials. Such a long delay will impact victims’ recovery, as well as all witnesses’ ability to recollect events and give evidence in court. Does the Conservative party now regret the decision to close more than half the courts across England and Wales since 2010? The chief executive of Her Majesty’s Courts  and Tribunals Service said that we need 200 Nightingale courts to eliminate the case backlog, but only 25 are up and running. It is not overstating it to say that without urgent action, the Government are losing the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to serve the public and uphold the law.
Will the Minister, in his closing remarks, tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact of the backlog on the number of cases that are dropped as victims and witnesses withdraw from the process? What steps are the Government taking to speed up justice for vulnerable people who are victims of crimes such as rape and domestic violence? Finally, the justice system should not be run on the cheap, so has the Minister learned the lesson that drastic austerity cuts inflicted on the Ministry of Justice were a false economy?

Jacob Young: Over the past year we have faced an unprecedented crisis—in our health service, in our economy and, yes, in our justice system, too. Unfortunately, a period of national crisis is not enough to deter criminals and, worse, many have sought to take advantage of those made even more vulnerable by the circumstances. As people stayed at home, the number of domestic abuse cases went up sharply over the course of the past year.
I commend the work of organisations like Eva Women’s Aid and Foundation in Redcar for their work to support victims of domestic abuse during this time. Home simply is not the safe place it is supposed to be for everyone, but the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will better protect victims while perpetrators will not only be brought to justice more quickly, but also with the prospect of being locked up for longer. There is more to do, and I thank the Government for listening to the voice of women and girls and extending the recent call for evidence.
I also congratulate the new Conservative police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who is holding a separate survey for women and girls in Teesside to respond to, so that we can use that evidence to get the right funding and resources to help women feel safe in Teesside. So far, more than 750 women have responded, which shows the strength of feeling and the worrying experiences that women and girls in Teesside face every day.
Sadly, knife crime claims all too many lives. I feel particularly sorry for the people of London, who were let down by a Mayor who clearly cannot get a grip of this issue. Knife crime is, of course, not limited to the capital; it happens every day, and Ministry of Justice figures show that Teesside is one of the most dangerous places for knives and offensive weapons in the country, highlighting our need for a violence reduction unit in Teesside. I pay tribute to the incredible work of organisations like the Chris Cave Foundation to deter young people from carrying offensive weapons of any kind. The organisation was set up by Theresa Cave after her son was killed in a knife crime attack 18 years ago; the anniversary of his death is on Saturday. She thinks the justice system is still far too lenient when it comes to serious crime, or, in her own words,
“The police do their job but there are far too many getting a slap on the wrist when caught with weapons. The courts need to take a far more serious view on this to make potential offenders think twice before”
picking up an offensive weapon. This must be our charge: to hear what victims are saying and ensure that our justice system does deliver when people need it; that young people are protected from harm; and that women and girls, and indeed everyone, is kept safe from dangerous criminals and abusers. I commend the Government for their work and thank them for what they are doing in this regard.

Nigel Evans: We have had a couple of withdrawals, so after Catherine West will be Andy Carter.

Catherine West: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) mentioned knife crime, because as we have been speaking two youngsters have been arrested for a tragic knife crime incident yesterday outside a school—it can happen anywhere. Unfortunately, I think there might have been an increase in shooting as well, so across the spectrum of crime, from antisocial behaviour, where 1.5 million separate incidents have been reported this year, right through to rape, sexual assault and some of the most serious crimes, crime is up under this Government.
I thank the Justice Secretary for his gracious apology to the 44% of victims who walk away. The saddest thing as a constituency MP is to hear a victim of crime say, “I cannot stand this any longer. I know what he did to me was wrong, but I cannot face this any longer.” We have that on an epidemic scale in this country, which is why that vigil touched a nerve for every woman in this country. It is because we are sick of it. That is exactly why there is so much emotion around this topic. Whether we are talking about Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, who were murdered in a disgraceful, heinous attack last summer, or the terrible circumstances around the Sarah Everard case, this touches a nerve because we know that our justice system is failing victims.
I want to see this improve, and I have made that very clear during this debate. I want to see an absolute seriousness in dealing with this, because it goes to the heart of who we are and the culture, and we must own this as a big problem within our society. I also wish briefly to thank the Justice Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for saying that when he was a Minister he felt that the Government did take out too much, and the decade of austerity is not helping now.
I briefly wish to touch on the issue of perpetrators, because I am not really one of those people who just wants to throw the key away. When the prison system is failing so hugely, what do we expect but to have people coming out and wanting to create mayhem and more crimes? We need to make our prisons safe, decent and secure; to have education and training for prisoners, so that they can get a job on release; and to address addiction. Our prisons are full of people who are addicted to drugs but who have time on their hands. Why are we not providing high-quality addiction services, and training the staff and paying them properly so that they can look after the perpetrators? This approach would allow us to have the justice that we seek: justice for victims, as per the excellent manifesto that our Front-Bench team have produced, doing the homework for the Government, as ever; and, secondly, a proper prison system so that we can have justice in our society and a genuine reflection of us and our identity, and what we want to see in our society.

Andy Carter: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I am pleased to speak in this debate, not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the judiciary. Through the pandemic, I have been to courts on Merseyside regularly as a magistrate, to hear issues being brought forward through the courts system. We have talked today about delays and problems, but it is incredibly important that we put on the record our thanks to the people who have worked all the way through the pandemic in the courts system to ensure that justice was delivered and is delivered in a timely fashion. In particular, let us thank the magistrates, who are, on the whole, volunteers. They did not have to go in, but they chose to get in their cars to drive to magistrates courts. We should also thank the judges, ushers and legal advisers who spent time in courts and had to adapt, innovate and work through with real determination to ensure that the wheels of justice keep turning.
Those who commit criminal offences did not down tools during the covid epidemic. Disputes between neighbours, businesses and family members continued to arise, and vulnerable children and domestic abuse victims, in particular, still needed support and time in the courts. Having sat in many domestic violence courts, I know that, when requests were made by the police, magistrates were there to deliver those orders in swift order.
I am very pleased that we are seeing progress in the courts. Jury trials simply do not mix with a global pandemic, but the UK is the first western common-law nation to resume jury trials, and the Government have put a tremendous amount into ensuring that justice can be delivered. I particularly welcome—I mentioned this earlier—the investment in technology. That has really revolutionised the court system. There is nothing more frustrating as a magistrate than sitting and waiting for papers to be handed round in courts. Today, with a new computer system, things can happen in a much speedier and more efficient manner, so that is a tremendous investment.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister to ensure that we have the resource readily available to support those with mental health and learning difficulties who are at this moment trying to navigate our court systems. I have a number of cases locally where disputes are causing great distress for my constituents. We need to ensure that these people are not just talking to screens. The benefits of the complex cases court for those suffering mental ill health are invaluable, and I encourage the Minister to look at what we can do to roll that out further.
These issues are far too important to politicise. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the work that he has been doing through this global health emergency to ensure that the action required to protect the public and prevent the spread of the virus will also ensure that victims are protected and justice is served.

Kim Johnson: The justice system is failing endemically to live up to its name. As of last month, there were half a million cases outstanding in the magistrates and Crown courts, and some trials are now being listed for 2022. Victims, witnesses and defendants are facing years of waiting  with procedures hanging over them. This is a crisis of justice. Even before the pandemic, Tory austerity cuts had brought the justice system to its knees, with the Ministry of Justice losing a quarter of its budget over the last 10 years. Resulting reductions in legal aid and the increase in court and tribunal fees have increasingly made justice a privilege of those who can afford it, leaving those who cannot with immense and, too often, insurmountable barriers. This has left the scales of justice weighed against ordinary people.
This sorry state of affairs was made crystal clear in the recent collapse of the Hillsborough trial, described as a “mockery” and a “shambles” by family members of the 96, who had fought tirelessly for justice. Will the Minister today go some way towards rebalancing the scales and commit to bringing forward the Hillsborough law, which would place a duty of candour on all public officials and require parity of legal funding for bereaved families and public bodies?
The pursuit of justice stretches beyond the courts, as well the Minister knows. It necessarily includes the ability of people to hold public authorities to account. However, the draconian measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill severely threaten our ability to do just that. By making it an offence to cause “serious annoyance” or “inconvenience”, this Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The Black Lives Matter protests last year and more recent demonstrations in response to the murder of Sarah Everard shone a new spotlight on a pattern of violent crackdown by police on peaceful protesters that stretches back to miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s and beyond.
I ask the Minister: what does this Bill do to make our communities safer or bring justice closer to those families? Some of the most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. In Liverpool, we have a large, eminent settlement of GRT families living in Kirkdale, who face systemic discrimination as well as routine violence. These new proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful, and threaten increased persecution of these communities. The Government’s own consultation on extending these powers shows that even the majority of police respondents think that the crackdown is the wrong approach.
The fact that the Government have spent so much time and resource curtailing people’s basic democratic rights and freedoms to hold them to account, rather than focusing on overhauling our creaking and hollowed-out justice system, speaks volumes about their priorities. I call on them today to reject the authoritarian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and invest significant resources in balancing the legal system—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sorry, Kim, but we are on a three-minute limit. We let you go on a bit after, don’t worry.

Kate Osborne: As has been highlighted today, violence against women and girls is endemic. It affects one in three of us in our lifetimes. From prevention to bringing perpetrators to justice, we need to be determined  to do everything in our power to ensure that we tackle the underlying misogynistic attitudes that lead to violence against women and girls. We must ensure that victims feel able to report abuse and that they can trust the criminal justice system to enable them to gain justice.
Earlier this year, the Government laid out their law and order agenda in the mammoth Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but despite the Bill’s size, there is nothing in it at all that even attempts to tackle violence against women and girls. The Crown court backlog currently exceeds 58,000 cases, which means that survivors of serious sexual assault and rape are having to wait years to go to trial. This long wait for justice meant that a record number of criminal cases collapsed last year, as more than 1 million victims dropped out before trials even began.
It is not just an issue in the courts. In England and Wales last year, more than 52,000 rapes were recorded by police, and only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons—a rate of 1.6%. That has led many survivors of rape and sexual assault to believe that the system is set up to work against them, not for them. The fact is that the police never investigate most sexual violence, because most sexual violence goes unreported. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, just under 25% of sexual assaults are reported to the police—significantly less than other violent crimes. There are many reasons for that, but one often cited is distrust and fear of the police. We need an institutional overhaul.
We must do our utmost to ensure that victims and survivors get access to the support that they need. It is essential that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill be amended to ensure that the criminal justice system works for survivors of gender-based violence. For the last five years, the Government have promised a victims Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but like the rape review, it is still nowhere to be seen. Giving women and girls who are victims of gender-based violence more rights would go a long way to preventing them from dropping out before trial, as would fast-tracking rape and serious sexual assault cases through the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts.
Seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working. This Conservative Government must put ending violence against women and girls at the top of their agenda. I urge colleagues across the House to vote for the motion today because, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), we need to step up, end this inaction and stop failing women and girls.

Matt Western: Justice cannot be brought without first apprehension, then investigation and finally resolution. What we have witnessed over the past decade has been the considerable dismantling and diminution of our criminal justice system—the loss of 22,000 police from our streets; the closure of hundreds of police stations such as in Warwick, Hartlepool and elsewhere, making access to the police more difficult and meaning that more crimes go unrecorded; and the closure of half the courts between 2010 and 2019.
Across the country, as a proportion of all crime recorded by the police, violence reached its highest level in 2019-20 since comparative records began. Violence against the person increased in every police force across  the country, and overall only one in 14 crimes led to a charge. Locally in Warwickshire, knife crime has quadrupled since 2013-14—a 300% increase in just seven years.
I want to focus on the failures of justice in relation to sexual violence and harassment and child abuse, as shared with me by constituents. Let me start with sexual violence and harassment. We see this Government failing to protect women and girls from violent criminals, which should be one of the first duties of any Government. With record low conviction rates of perpetrators of sexual violence and an epidemic of misogyny that makes women and girls feel unsafe, the Government are treating victims of violence as an afterthought. New research has found that seven in 10 women say that the Government’s efforts to make the UK safer for women are not working and consider Government action to be inadequate. Victims are losing faith that the justice system will be there for them.
In Warwickshire, there were 1,600 arrests for domestic abuse-related crimes between 1 April and 30 June, and 15% of all recorded crime is domestic abuse-related, yet still the police and crime commissioner is replacing all nine staff from its domestic abuse unit with police constables, who should be out on the street.
The crime survey of England and Wales estimates that 3.1 million adults were victims and survivors of child sexual abuse before they turned 16, which is likely to be a highly conservative estimate. Cases brought before courts are too few, and convictions are even fewer.
Tackling gender-based violence is at the very top of Labour’s agenda, by making misogyny a hate crime, increasing sentences for rapists and stalkers and creating new specific offences for street sexual harassment and sex for rent; time prevents me from going through all the details. With record low conviction rates for perpetrators of sexual violence and the epidemic of misogyny against women and girls, which makes them feel so unsafe, this Government are treating victims of violence as an afterthought. That is why I will be voting for our motion.

Ellie Reeves: I am glad to see so many Members across the House here today to speak about the importance of ending violence against women and girls and what the Government need to do to ensure proper justice for victims. I am grateful to my colleagues, who have made some powerful points. The hon. Members for Telford (Lucy Allan) and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke about the fact that some crimes are so awful that the perpetrator should never be released; the hon. Member for Telford spoke about 17-year-old Georgia Williams, who was brutally murdered in her constituency, and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire spoke about Dawn and Lynda, who were raped and murdered as teenagers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) talked about the need to enshrine victims’ rights in law, which the Opposition have been pushing for strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) raised the case of his constituent, a woman who was horrifically injured by her former partner, but backlogs in the courts mean that he may end up living back on the same street as her. My hon. Friend brought to life the reality of the court backlogs with that example.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather disgraceful that, in a debate on the important subject of violence against women, the Government Benches are empty?

Ellie Reeves: I am grateful for that intervention. That is really important, and it shows the Government’s lack of seriousness on this issue. This is so serious. My hon. Friend, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), made powerful points about how women who are victims of rape have lost confidence in the criminal justice system, and because of that, they are giving up on their cases before they even get to court.
Let me be clear: this Government are letting down victims of rape and serious sexual violence on every front. There is a 58,000-case backlog in our courts; rape prosecutions are at their lowest level on record; rape conviction levels are at a 10-year low; and domestic abuse prosecution levels are plummeting. Only one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charged, and the number of victims who pull out of their trial has more than doubled in the past five years. The horrendous figures speak for themselves: this Tory Government have completely failed victims.
When I have spoken to victims, they have told me that they often feel as though they are on trial when they report these crimes. They have told me how being left to wait years for their day in court leaves them in a form of purgatory, unable to move on from what has happened to them. Many feel that the justice system is working against them and not for them. That is a complete and utter failing by this Government.
The police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, England’s second-biggest police force, recently warned that rape and domestic violence cases will be among the worst hit by the growing court crisis. He described how the backlog of cases
“undermines the credibility of the justice system”,
with cases collapsing owing to the lengthy delays that victims face, and said:
“It’s particularly domestic abuse, violence against women and rape cases that are going to be at serious risk”
of collapsing. With 44% of rape victims already pulling out before their cases get to trial and record low prosecution and conviction rates for rape, we cannot afford things to deteriorate any further. We cannot afford more women and girls to be continually let down by this Government. We cannot afford to wait any longer for action: enough is enough.
We have now been waiting for more than two years for the Government’s rape review and the date of publication has again been kicked into the long grass, with no action forthcoming from the Government. In that time, another 100,000 rapes have been reported to the police. Not only are there huge delays with the publication of the rape review, but the Minister who has direct oversight of it, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), does not even know to whom he and his Department have spoken. When recently there was an urgent question on the review, the Minister was asked whether the review had directly consulted survivors as part of its engagement panel. He said that they had been, but the reality is that the review has commissioned  no specific survey of rape victims and no roundtable meetings have been held directly with survivors of rape and sexual abuse. In the more than two years since the review was announced, how on earth has there been no direct contact with survivors? How can this Government say that they have put victims at the heart of the review when they have failed to speak to them directly? The views and experiences of victims must be at the centre of our efforts to turn the tide on record low levels of rape charges and convictions, but instead victims have been ignored throughout the entire process.
It is clear that at every single step of their journey, victims are being let down by this Government. The Government have no ideas and no plan. Labour has one—we have a plan. We have set out what we would do in our survivors’ support plan and our Green Paper on ending violence against women and girls. We would introduce tougher sentences for rape, stalking and domestic murder; review sentencing for all domestic abuse; and introduce whole-life tariffs for those who rape, abduct and murder a stranger. We would remove the legal barriers—such as legal aid and no recourse to public funds—that prevent the victims of domestic abuse from getting the help that they need. We would introduce a survivor support package to improve victims’ experience in the courts. The package would include the fast-tracking of rape and sexual violence cases, legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help that they need. We would also bring in training for teachers to help to identify, respond to and support child victims of domestic abuse.
Will the Minister commit today to backing Labour’s survivors’ support plan? Will he introduce the indicators across the CPS, Ministry of Justice and police that are required to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, as set out in our Green Paper? Will he commit to enshrining victims’ rights in law? Will he create more Nightingale courts to reduce the court backlog? And will he finally publish the long-awaited rape review?
This Government have let down victims on every front. We need to see how they intend to reverse the shocking deterioration in rape prosecutions on their watch, and how they intend to improve the experience of the criminal justice system for victims of rape and sexual violence, and restore it so that it works for everyone.
I urge every Member of the House committed to ending violence against women and girls, to protecting the public and to ensuring that victims get justice and that we have a criminal justice system that works for everyone to vote with us today and support Labour’s motion. The time for warm words is over. We need action. We need a plan. That is exactly what our motion today does.

Chris Philp: It is a great pleasure to be able to close this evening’s debate.
The covid pandemic is truly unprecedented. It has affected every corner of our lives; from hospital operations denied, to schools closed, to businesses struggling, and even how Parliament itself operates, we have seen covid’s effects. The court system is of course no different; bringing people safely into buildings for trials and  hearings, especially jury trials, is a difficult thing to do. It has required a Herculean effort over the last year and more to keep our justice system operating, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the judiciary, the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, barristers, solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the National Probation Service and so many others who have worked tirelessly in extraordinarily difficult circumstances to keep our justice system running.
In doing that we have, as I have said, had to confront a Herculean task, yet at the beginning of this afternoon’s debate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) suggested from the Opposition Front Bench that there had been inaction by the Government during this time; extraordinarily, that was what the shadow Justice Secretary said. Nothing is further from the truth, however. Impressive action has been taken in the last year to combat the impact of coronavirus on our court system: a quarter of a billion pounds extra spent on making sure our justice system can still operate; 1,600 extra HMCTS staff hired; 402 Crown court jury courtrooms set up, more than the target of 390; and a rapid deployment of remote hearing technology that has enabled 20,000 remote hearings a week, a 4,000% increase on the number before the pandemic.

Catherine West: The title of this debate is “Justice for Victims”. What advice would the Minister give me as a constituency MP when a young victim says, “I’m not going to pursue that case because I cannot give the next four years of my life to that man”? What is his advice when she says, “I’m just going to go and get my cousins to beat him up”?

Chris Philp: I would advise any Member of Parliament to do everything they can to support victims in their constituency to pursue prosecution. I will talk in a few minutes about some of the measures we are taking to speed up the justice system further and help and support victims, particularly women victims and victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, but we should all encourage and support our constituents. I know the hon. Lady would do that; I am sure she is doing it, as of course we all do, and I will discuss some of those measures in just a moment.
I was talking, however, about the action we are taking to ensure that justice is delivered and that victims like the hon. Lady’s constituent can have confidence. In addition to those 20,000 remote hearings a week, speeding up justice for people like the hon. Lady’s constituent, we now have covid-safe measures in 450 courtrooms. We have opened up 60 Nightingale courtrooms around the country. We have got super-courts coming to hear multi-hander trials. And to support victims such as the hon. Lady’s constituent we are spending this year across Government, not just in the MOJ, £300 million to give victims the support, encouragement and help they need, exactly as the hon. Lady was saying a moment ago.
These actions have delivered results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said in her excellent speech, despite these difficulties the England and Wales jurisdiction is leading the world in court recovery. Many jurisdictions have barely restarted jury trials. We restarted jury trials in May of last year, and we were the first jurisdiction of our kind to do so. Backlogs in other jurisdictions are far higher than ours when we adjust for size.
Talking about our jurisdictions, in the magistrates court—let us start there—the outstanding caseload is dropping now by about 2,000 cases a week. The outstanding caseload at one point, at the height of the pandemic back in the summer of last year, went up to 525,000. As the shadow Justice Secretary said in his remarks, it is now back down to 460,000. About half of the extra caseload caused by covid has now been removed, and every single week it is relentlessly going down further. That is thanks to the work of our magistrates, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who sits on the bench in Merseyside. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the work they have done in reducing that outstanding caseload in magistrates courts week in and week out.
The Crown court is obviously more difficult because jury trials and pandemics do not very well mix, and the number of outstanding cases has gone up. However, I can report to the House that the level of disposals—[Interruption.] I am coming on to that. The level of disposals now in the Crown court is running above the pre-covid level. It is running about 5% above the pre-covid level, as of the week commencing 25 April, which was just a few weeks ago. The most recent management data we have—it is not yet published, and is subject, of course, to verification—from the last few weeks now shows the outstanding caseload beginning to turn the corner and decline as these measures take effect.

Catherine West: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Philp: Of course.

Catherine West: There is so much time; it is only 6.46 pm. Could the Minister explain to me why there is a three-month waiting list for an independent sexual violence adviser, and why those individuals are not allowed to go into the courtroom when the victim desperately needs them to go in with them on the day? At the moment, they are not allowed into the courtroom.

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. For the very reasons she mentions, we are currently recruiting a large number of additional ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers. A lot of extra money has gone into this in the last year, and the recruitment is well under way. Those ISVAs do provide vital support to victims to make sure they are able to give their evidence.
I have outlined the action we have taken—the substantial action we have taken—and the results that it is delivering. But we are not resting there; we are doing more. In this current financial year, the Lord Chancellor—my right hon. and learned Friend has just joined us—has made it clear, as has the Lord Chief Justice, that Crown court sitting day numbers will not be a limit to listing. We have given a clear signal to the judiciary to list as much as they possibly can without limitation, and I am sure that our country’s judges will be listening to our proceedings this afternoon and will list cases accordingly.
We are also going to continue opening more Nightingale courts, and we are going to have some super courts to hear multi-hander cases. Of course, I am delighted that, following the energetic and effective campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), Kent is one of the most recent places to have a Nightingale court opened.
We heard a little bit of commentary about the state of our justice system prior to the pandemic, and reference was made by several Opposition Members to the outstanding caseload of 39,000 cases prior to the start of a pandemic in the early part of 2020. It was suggested that that level of outstanding cases was shockingly high, but what none of the Opposition Members chose to mention or chose to remember was the fact that in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, the outstanding caseload in the Crown court was not 39,000, but 47,000—a great deal higher. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who got that outstanding caseload down by 12,000 compared with our Labour predecessor prior to the onset of the pandemic.
We also heard some commentary about convictions and about the state of the criminal justice system. The most reliable measure of crime is the crime survey; it is the only statistical measure recognised by the Office for National Statistics. The number of crimes recorded by the crime survey back in 2010 was 9.5 million. The most recent figures from a year or so ago show that that has declined by 40%, with the figure down to 5.6 million, so we do not need any lectures about the last 10 years from the Opposition, when crime under this Government has dropped by 40% according to the most reliable measure. Of course we want that to continue, and we are hiring 20,000 more police officers and 400 more prosecutors to make sure that that reduction in crime, as measured by the crime survey, continues.
We heard quite a few moving and important contributions during this afternoon’s debate on the critical issues of violence against women and girls and of rape, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for her thoughtful speech on this, as well as the many other Members who contributed to this discussion. I would like to start by addressing the question of sentencing for rape, which was raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his speech. The maximum sentence for rape is life, and judges are free to sentence up to that level. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the actual sentence lengths that are being handed down. The sentences that are being handed down for adult rape have increased in the past 10 years by two and a half years. They have increased from 79.2 months back in 2010 to 109.4 months more recently. The average sentence for men convicted of this appalling crime has gone up by two and a half years, and quite right too, because it is a despicable and appalling offence.
It is not just the sentence that is important; it is also important how much of that sentence is served in prison. We legislated by statutory instrument about a year ago, and we are legislating again now in the PCSC Bill to ensure that violent criminals, including rapists, get released automatically not after half their sentence, as was the case under the last Labour Government, but after two thirds of their sentence, to ensure not only that sentences are longer but that more of the sentences are spent in prison. That is the right thing to do, and I strongly support those measures.
Many Members have raised the issue of the inappropriately low rate of rape convictions. The Government fully acknowledge that the rape conviction rate is far too low and that action is needed. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge asked some questions about the rape review. I do not want to  pre-empt it too much, but my understanding is that it will be published in days rather than weeks. It will comprehensively seek to address the issue of rape convictions. They are too low—there is no two ways about that—and through the rape review, we will work with those on both sides of the House to get the rape conviction rate increased, because that undoubtedly needs to happen.
Many steps have been taken already, but more are needed. I particularly draw the House’s attention to the section 28 rules about evidence. As of last November, all vulnerable witnesses have been able to give pre-recorded evidence at a very early stage in the process, including the cross-examination, in order to deal with exactly the sort of trauma that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) referred to, and to get evidence recorded quickly so that the victim can move on. That has applied to all vulnerable victims as of November last year, and we are now piloting a further three areas where victims who could potentially be intimidated can record their evidence in the same way. That is an extremely important move.
More generally on violence against women and girls, a great deal has been done already, although of course there is more to do. Domestic violence protection orders were prioritised by the courts during the pandemic, and it was this Government that introduced new stalking offences and increased the sentences for them. This Government, with cross-party support, introduced the upskirting offence, did work on female genital mutilation, introduced and passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and introduced the measures on non-fatal strangulation and the rough sex defence—action after action designed to protect women and girls.
However, more is needed and in the coming months, we will publish a refreshed violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy. There will be a review of domestic homicide and, of course, the Law Commission is conducting a review of hate crime, which will include misogyny. There has been progress, but we need to make a great deal more.

Catherine West: The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he acknowledge the important work done through private Members’ Bills on those subjects? The way that he expressed it suggests that they were all the ideas of the Tory Government. If I am correct, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) promoted a private Member’s Bill on upskirting and another Member had a measure on strangulation. Several of the Minister’s recommendations come not from the Government but from private Members’ Bills.

Chris Philp: I made it clear that the measures had cross-party support. It is true that some of the ideas originated in private Members’ Bills, and we welcome that. The Government listens across the House and takes action. Therefore, when private Members’ Bills that had merit were introduced, such as some of those we have heard about, for example, the upskirting measure, we embraced them and got them passed. We can all, on both sides of the House—the Members who promoted the private Members’ Bills and the Government for embracing and passing them—be proud of that. As I said, much has been done, but there is much more to do.
I want to deal with one or two specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made some important points about pet theft. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, a taskforce is taking action on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned catalytic converter theft, which also plagues Croydon South, and I will take up his suggestion.
I want to pause on the moving and powerful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who recounted the appalling constituency case of Georgia, who was so awfully murdered, and of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), whose constituents, Lynda and Dawn, were murdered by that terrible man, Pitchfork. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford also raised that case. The Government have of course seen the independent Parole Board’s decision of Monday to release that man. Thanks to legislation passed a year or two ago, the Lord Chancellor has the power to review such decisions and to ask the Parole Board to think again. I can confirm that the review of that decision is ongoing and will be concluded before the expiration of the relevant time limit. The Lord Chancellor is acutely aware of the case and is looking at it as we speak. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Telford and for South Leicestershire for raising the case. I assure them that it is under active consideration.
It is clear that the pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on our justice system as it has on so many parts of our lives, but we cannot allow the virus to stand in the way of justice. That is why we have taken action: Nightingale courts; £250 million; no limitation on sitting days; 1,600 extra staff; the roll-out of technology, and so many other measures. We will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that our justice system recovers.
Our justice system is the cornerstone of a civilised society. It is fundamental to keeping us and our constituents safe. The Government will do everything necessary to sustain, support and protect our justice system and victims. We have led the world in court recovery. That work will continue.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets the unprecedented backlog of more than 57,000 Crown Court cases, as well as record low convictions for rape and a collapse in convictions for all serious crime; calls on the Government to set up more Nightingale Courts, to enshrine victims’ rights in law and to introduce the proposals set out in Labour’s ‘Ending Violence Against Women and Girls’ Green Paper; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Justice to update the House in person on progress made in reducing the court backlog by 22 July.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Business without Debate

Public Accounts Commission

Resolved,
That Alan Mak be discharged as a member of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983, and that Anthony Browne be appointed.—(Alan Mak.)

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy Conservation

That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 28 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - South Tyneside Hospital

Emma Lewell-Buck: I rise to present a petition about South Tyneside Hospital on behalf of 44,000 of my constituents in South Shields.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Shields,
Declares that the downgrading of South Tyneside Hospital announced in the “alliance” between South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust (STFT) and City Hospitals Sunderland (CHS) with loss of acute services will be a disaster for the people of South Tyneside and the people of Sunderland; further that the removal of all acute services to Sunderland will make the Sunderland A&E unsustainable and will mean that people from South Tyneside will have to travel to Sunderland or Newcastle; further that the immediate threat of this “alliance” is the loss of acute stroke and maternity services; further that the decision to downgrade South Tyneside Hospital demonstrates that the Government’s direction with the NHS is to reduce its funding and damage it through its fragmentation into purchasers and providers, closure of acute hospitals and A&E Departments, cut-backs and the takeover of the most profitable services by private health companies; further that the Government has a duty to provide a comprehensive health service across England to all communities; and further that access to healthcare is a right of all in a modern society and we demand that it be guaranteed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group and South Tyneside Health & Well-being Board to stop any plans to close acute services at South Tyneside District Hospital and to safeguard its Accident and Emergency Service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002667]

Free Trade Agreements: Cameroon and Ghana

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Alan Mak.)

Sarah Olney: Thank you very much for granting this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. While the UK-Australia trade deal has been getting a great deal of attention recently, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the UK’s agreements with Cameroon and Ghana. I wish to raise the opportunities that the Minister and his Department have missed and the distressing lack of ambition that has been shown in these deals.
Throughout the passage of the Trade Act 2021, I and many other Members across the House raised our concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. That is just as true of these roll-over deals as it is of the brand new free trade agreements. In fact, calling these deals “roll-over deals” is somewhat misleading. While they have received very little public or parliamentary attention, they are of huge importance for Ghanaian and Cameroonian partners. The original EU deals on which these deals are based included mechanisms for ongoing parliamentary dialogue between the EU Parliament and their Ghanaian and Cameroonian counterparts.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward; the number of people who are here is an indication of the interest in this issue. Does she agree that historically the UK has used these arrangements to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations, and that at times this can limit the policy space available to Governments in developing countries and prevents them from regulating their economies in the public and democratic interest? Does she further agree that, when it comes to a free trade agreement, we must be careful to build up and not make life too difficult for these nations?

Sarah Olney: The hon. Member is precisely right; that is a very real danger of these deals.
Parliamentary scrutiny has not been replicated in the new deal, which means there is no ongoing scrutiny of this deal for UK MPs, and nor have MPs been involved in setting the mandate for negotiations. As a result of the Trade Act, my honourable colleagues and I have no guaranteed vote or debate on the final deal, instead relying on the CRaG— Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—process, which was not designed for modern trade deals and is therefore not fit for purpose.

Rachel Hopkins: The hon. Lady, like me, has heard the Government say many times that the most important thing about Brexit is being able to take our own decisions on issues such as trade, rather than the EU doing so, and that the British Parliament should have a final say in all these decisions. Does she understand why the Government now insist that we must roll over exactly the same deal that the EU had with Cameroon without any questions asked, and with no changes, and that Parliament has no right to a final vote on that deal? Does that sound like taking back control to her?

Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Lady. No, it does not, and at every stage the Government have refused any kind of scrutiny, either of their EU deals or, as she says, the roll-over deals that have followed.

Matt Western: I thank the hon. Lady for holding this really important debate, evidenced by the number of people who are here tonight. She will be aware that the shadow Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Government to hold a debate and crucially a vote on the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, but is she aware that the Secretary of State rejected that request on the basis that there had been a 14-minute debate on the previous EU deal in the other place back in November 2010 and therefore no further debate would be required? Does she think that sounds like a Government who care about parliamentary scrutiny, let alone human rights?

Sarah Olney: The hon. Member admirably makes my point for me: at every stage this Government have refused scrutiny. We cannot and do not have any oversight at all of what the British Government are doing in our name and how they are supporting our African partners.

Alex Cunningham: Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said, the hon. Lady will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that, when it comes to trade deals,
“I can think of behaviour that would cross the line and render a country beyond the pale.”
The Biya regime is responsible for mass executions, burning villages, the killing of women, children and the elderly, torture, disappearances and sexual abuse. That is not just a one-off; it has happened on a sustained basis over four years against the English-speaking population. Can the hon. Lady possibly understand why the Government do not consider that that behaviour crosses the line and puts Cameroon well beyond the pale?

Sarah Olney: The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. The lack of scrutiny means that the events that he describes do not come to light and that we do not get an opportunity to express our view as a British Parliament on whether that is acceptable.
It is not only MPs to whom the Government are not listening. Ghana and Cameroon are part of the Economic Community of West African States, which is composed largely of least developed countries that have been automatically offered tariff-free access to the UK market under the Everything but Arms scheme. The Conservative Government had previously made it clear that regional trade was one of their major priorities for African economic development through the support of the UK’s aid budget, namely £4 million between 2010 and 2016, yet Ghana’s requests for an approach that would not cut across its ECOWAS commitments were consistently rebuffed. The liberalisation schedule will see Ghana beginning to open its markets to UK goods immediately, on a timetable that is at odds with its neighbours in the ECOWAS customs union. That totally undermines regional trade in west Africa.

Chi Onwurah: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I congratulate the hon. Lady on holding this really  important debate that the Government have prevented. On her last point, does she agree that by rolling over individual trade agreements, the UK is losing the opportunity to put in place a generalised trade agreement with the combined African trade area, which could be pro-development and could support African countries through trade in a much more positive way?

Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The point that I would like to make is that there are so many missed opportunities in this roll-over deal; the one that she mentions is absolutely an example.
With nothing stopping UK goods entering Ghana duty-free and leaking into neighbouring countries, those countries will need to introduce new border checks, which will significantly set back progress towards improved continental trading links. Does the Department have plans to do an ex post assessment of the impact of the deals on regional integration? If their effect is found to be damaging, will the Minister commit to reviewing them?
Not only have the Government not listened to Ghana, but at the beginning of this year, when roll-over deals had failed to be agreed on time, they imposed tariffs on imports from Ghana and Cameroon. In January, Brexit tariffs were imposed on a shipment of Fairtrade goods from Africa that arrived into Portsmouth, including £17,500 on shipments of bananas from Ghana. The UK has worked hard through the Fairtrade Foundation to ensure that the food coming into this country is of the same standard that we would expect our own producers to sell elsewhere.
The Government refused to waive or reimburse the tariffs, placing huge extra costs on importers, namely Fairtrade fruit and agriculture co-operatives. That totally undermines the efforts of the Ghanaian banana industry to protect the livelihoods of the many thousands of workers and their communities who rely on tariff-free access. It is outrageous that we are penalising developing countries that are improving labour rights, environmental standards and food standards. We should be supporting them.

Chi Onwurah: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Olney: I might make some progress, if that is okay.
Looking forward, it is essential that Ghana and Cameroon be supported through the implementation of these trade deals and any future trade facilitation. The UK is reneging on its obligations set out in the roll-over agreement to provide aid for trade. Ghana, Cameroon and many other countries in the Everything but Arms scheme have to change their export procedures to meet HMRC import procedures. We are imposing that cost on them. Why should they bear it? Can the Minister confirm whether Ghana or Cameroon will receive any aid to support the implementation of these deals?
In a letter to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Foreign Secretary implied that Cameroon will receive no bilateral aid this year. Are the Minister and his Department not concerned that that will have a negative impact on the implementation of the deal? The UK is currently not even meeting the financial burden that we have imposed, let alone further trade facilitation costs. Will the Minister commit to protecting TradeMark East Africa and future trade facilitation funding?
I am also deeply concerned about the lack of thorough impact assessments for these deals. Unlike for new trade agreements, the Department has not published scoping assessments, or any detail about the effect of these new deals on the economy, the environment, human rights or international development. The Government have not yet published their framework for how they are approaching impact assessments after Brexit, given that they are no longer bound by the EU scheme. This was due to be published in January 2021, but no such framework has appeared. I am therefore anxious about whether deals such as the Ghana and Cameroon ones are aligned with the UK’s broader human rights, women’s rights and environmental commitments.

Liz Twist: I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Was she not especially surprised by the timing of the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, coming just weeks after the United States Senate unanimously backed a resolution supporting the US Government’s decision to suspend trade preferences with Cameroon, and urging other countries around the world to take similar action in solidarity? Does she think that the Secretary of State was not paying attention, or that she just did not care?

Sarah Olney: I would not presume to offer a view, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: a massive opportunity here has been missed to address some of the human rights and other impacts on which we could have had an influence through this trade deal.
That brings me to my question to the Minister: how is the UK assessing the impact of trade deals beyond the very rudimentary scoping assessments that happen prior to negotiations. Women comprise the majority of the cheap labour pool in both Ghana and Cameroon. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to the disruptive impact of trade liberalisation. Cheap food imports following the removal of tariff barriers have been found to reduce the domestic prices of agricultural produce and to lower women’s agricultural earnings. For example, in Ghana and South Africa, the dumping of EU poultry products following the EU economic partnership agreements have left many of the local farmers unable to compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dropped on African markets annually. Will the Minister explain how he will know whether the deals are rolling back progress on women’s economic rights if there are no ex-post assessments?
The Department has similarly shown a spectacular lack of ambition when it comes to the environmental provisions in the deals. The UK has actually taken a step backwards, choosing to replicate the approach taken in the EU-Ghana deal, rather than using the EU-West Africa EPA model, which includes provisions for parliamentary dialogue around environmental issues. I cannot understand why the UK has not used this model, which at least takes a step in the right direction, but has instead opted for the most basic option in both of these deals. The Department’s decision not to kick-start negotiations on a sustainable development chapter with Cameroon is a sorely missed opportunity to drive environmental objectives through trade. Ghana and Cameroon are currently suffering from deforestation  and land use change resulting in environmental harm, yet these deals do nothing to move discussions forward on preventing illegal deforestation.
In the past, the UK has negotiated a voluntary partnership agreement with Indonesia about the timber industry to tackle deforestation. When countries such as Ghana and Cameroon said that they could not guarantee that timber was produced legally and was not contributing to deforestation, instead of working with these countries to improve regulations, the Department has chosen to provide no support at all.
I would also be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the deal with Cameroon is aligned with the UK’s human rights commitments.

Navendu Mishra: Does the hon. Lady agree that President Biya’s brutal and highly factional repression of the English-speaking minorities of the country, including those in the Buea region, are tantamount to human rights abuses, and the UK Government should urgently reconsider the economic partnership agreement signed with Cameroon in March?

Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Member for his very valuable intervention. One of the key points that we need to impress on the Minister during this debate is the human rights angle.
The International Trade Committee has asked the Government to consider withdrawing trade preferences from Cameroon in the light of the human rights abuses in the country. Academic research shows that military assets provided by the international community are being transferred to the anglophone regions and used to persecute unarmed civilians, and the major national dialogue had no legitimacy in the eyes of anglophone civil society. I urge the Minister to press the Cameroon regime to call a ceasefire and participate in inclusive talks, mediated by a third party, such as Switzerland’s Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Finally, I want to talk about the use of rendez-vous clauses in both these agreements. I have two concerns. First, on top of the abysmally limited scrutiny that these deals are getting now, adding further areas of negotiation after they have been signed raises questions about how those additions can be effectively scrutinised. How would my honourable colleagues and I be able to hold the Government to account on what may be significant and potentially damaging new provisions?
My other concern is the substance of those future negotiations. Historically, the UK has used these negotiations to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations. Committing to trade rules on services, investments or patents, for instance, could undermine a country’s ability to develop strong, gender-responsive public services, to ensure that investment creates decent jobs and benefits for local economies, or to achieve access to medicines for all. Developing countries have long resisted attempts to push those issues in the World Trade Organisation, and they should not be imposed by the UK in bilateral deals.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. On that point, as she says, these trade deals require complex services to be admitted to the developing country while not providing it with support in order that it can export its products and services to  the high-quality standards that we have in this country. Does she agree that that unequal use of legal and other powers is detrimental to the development agenda?

Sarah Olney: I absolutely agree. The main failing of these trade agreements has been the real failure to support development in both these countries. It is not in our long-term interest in any sense not to support the local economies in every way we possibly can.
Trade deals have real potential to foster improved regional trade, protect human rights and support environmental protections, but parliamentary scrutiny and dialogue are crucial to achieving those goals. These deals do nothing to raise standards.

Charlotte Nichols: Does the hon. Lady agree that it makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny for the Government to say that we cannot have a vote on the UK’s deal with Cameroon today because we had a debate on the EU’s deal 11 years ago, especially since the main objection that many of us have to the UK’s deal is the campaign of violence from the Biya regime against the English-speaking population of Cameroon, which began just four years ago? Perhaps, as well as buying us a new royal yacht, the International Trade Secretary might look to buy us a time machine.

Sarah Olney: “Mockery” is the exact word. That is absolutely right. The Government are treating this House with utter disdain.
These deals not only represent a missed opportunity but present a real danger of contributing to environmental damage, eroding women’s economic rights and undermining developing countries’ ability to create a policy agenda that benefits their citizens. Will the Minister take advantage of the UK’s opportunity to shape the future of the global trading system by striking considered trade deals that rise to the opportunities and challenges that we all face?

Graham Stuart: My thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, and I thank other right hon. and hon. Members for taking part.
We all know that trade is a key driver of economic growth that can trigger positive changes in a country’s economy. It helps to raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Of course, it has been the trade liberalisation over recent decades, sadly not embraced by so many on the left of politics, that has lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than ever before in human history—something that should be celebrated. Between 1990 and 2015, as trade liberalisation enhanced market access, the percentage of people across the globe living in extreme poverty plummeted from 36% to less than 10%.
We want no country to be left behind without the full benefits of free and fair trade, and we are determined to help people around the world get ahead on the strength of their enterprise and ingenuity. It is therefore excellent news that the agreements that we have secured with both Ghana and Cameroon provide tariff-free access to the UK market. That will provide a huge boost, encouraging export-led growth as well as supporting and creating jobs in Ghana and Cameroon.
Of course, increased trade with developing countries also creates opportunities for UK firms and consumers. These deals open up fast-growing markets to our exporters and provide British consumers with access to Cameroonian and Ghanaian goods, including firm favourites such as bananas and cocoa, at competitive prices. Both countries have also agreed to a gradual liberalisation of tariffs on UK goods. That will create further opportunities for our exporters, particularly of machinery and electronics, and will ensure that Ghana and Cameroon can continue to enjoy the best of British at competitive rates. These agreements will ensure that our trade with Ghana and Cameroon continues to blossom, and will support jobs and economic opportunity and living standards in Africa here and at home.

Sarah Olney: I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response so far. At the start of his speech he spoke about supporting the economy and increasing employment, and all the other great things that we hope to achieve through our trade deals, but could he be more specific about how this trade deal will help that? I listed in my speech a number of different ways in which I believe that these trade deals are undermining progress towards those goals. I shall be grateful if he will give us a little bit more detail.

Graham Stuart: I am happy to do so. Dealing with the issue around human rights, I hear the concerns that hon. Members have voiced, particularly about human rights abuses in Cameroon. [Interruption.] It is a serious topic, and it would be best served if we did not have so much chuntering from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), as I am sure everyone would agree.
Our long-standing relationship with Cameroon allows us to have open, candid discussions on key issues. Violence does appear to have decreased in recent months compared with the peak of the conflict, but we continue to call for inclusive dialogue and an end to fighting in the north-west and south-west regions, through direct conversations with the Government of Cameroon and through international bodies, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested we should. We have urged the Cameroonian Government to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and have called for impartial investigations to ensure that perpetrators are held to account.
In March, the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), travelled to Cameroon and met President Biya, Prime Minster Ngute and Foreign Minister Mbella Mbella and made our position clear. We continue to monitor closely the human rights situation with Cameroon—

Alex Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Graham Stuart: I will not give way.
This Government’s position is that beneficial growth and support for democratic principles are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the former is an important part of  the latter. As we all know, more prosperous countries tend to be more secure and peaceful. For that reason, our focus remains on ensuring trade continuity, full ratification of the agreement and supporting trade-led growth in Cameroon.
I will turn now, if I may, to trade with Ghana. Our agreement with Ghana was signed on 2 March, restoring trading terms that had applied until the end of 2020. Our Department had long sought to conclude an agreement with Ghana. We proposed a deal on the same terms as Ghana had with the EU; I do not recall the hon. Member for Richmond Park being so passionately opposed to it when it was an EU deal, but perhaps that just comes with her party badge. Despite our consistent attempts, Ghana chose not to engage in talks on that basis for over a year. Between the end of the transition period and the agreement’s coming into effect in March, Ghana was instead eligible for preferential tariff rates under our generalised scheme of preferences. The UK made every endeavour to avoid that gap, but doing so was not entirely within our gift.
Nevertheless, I am proud to say that once meaningful engagement was established, both sides worked at an exceptional pace. We were able to minimise disruption to businesses by concluding negotiations in record time, and we look forward to working with Ghana fully to realise the potential of this agreement to provide vital jobs and livelihoods, as well as strengthening our long-standing ties.
Of course, one of the problems, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that if you base a lot of your argument on briefings provided by pressure groups, you can sometimes be misled. A bridging mechanism—

Emily Thornberry: Let’s have a proper debate.

Graham Stuart: The debate was obtained by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I do not think we need chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench, let alone so loud or rude.

Emily Thornberry: rose—

Graham Stuart: I have no intention of giving way. I would like the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to be quiet.

Emily Thornberry: Yeah—exactly.

Graham Stuart: She can speak in the proper way. She should not speak otherwise.

Nigel Evans: Order. We heard the contributions from the Opposition side in absolute silence. I now want to listen to the Minister’s response with the same courtesy.

Graham Stuart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A bridging mechanism ensured continuity of Cameroon’s duty-free, quota-free access, so there was no disruption similar to that with Ghana; I am afraid that the hon. Member for Richmond Park was misled.
Some hon. Members have voiced concerns over the relationship between the Ghana agreement and that country’s ambitions for regional integration. Since 2016 the EU’s agreement with Ghana has been in place despite Ghana’s existing ECOWAS membership. That is also true of Côte d’Ivoire, another ECOWAS member with a trade agreement with the EU. Although this debate does not concern Côte d’Ivoire, it is worth  noting that we have also rolled over that bilateral agreement. We are working closely with its Government to develop our relationship further. The UK’s agreements with both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire include provisions from the EU agreements on working towards a future trade agreement with the west Africa region. We look forward to discussing this prospect with our west African partners.
On scrutiny, it is important to note that Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise existing EU agreements. As with all continuity agreements, we follow the statutory process of laying agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but in line with this Government’s commitment to transparency, we went well beyond the statutory requirements of CRAG and provided comprehensive information to Parliament to support its scrutiny of our trade policy approach.
On the rendezvous clauses, our agreements with Ghana and Cameroon retain provisions from the original EU agreements, which provide for further negotiations relating to specific aspects of the treaties: for example, a provision to negotiate further commitments on sustainable development with Cameroon. This is in line with the principle of providing continuity of effect that has guided our approach to all continuity agreements. The parties are not obliged to make changes. Any updates would be negotiated, and changes to treaties would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.]
I now turn—preferably without further chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench—to the concerns that hon. Members have raised regarding the environmental provisions in these agreements. In line with our international obligations, the Government will continue to ensure a high level of protection for the environment in all new trade agreements. We have long supported the promotion of our green values globally, and this will continue now that we have left the EU and become an independent trading nation once again.
The UK’s trade agreements with Ghana and Cameroon secure liberalised tariffs for businesses and pave the way for further economic growth as the world seeks to build back better from covid-19. These deals give British consumers access to more products at competitive prices and will see more of the best of British enjoyed by the people of Ghana and Cameroon—something that it seems the hon. Member for Richmond Park is not in favour of.
I can assure the House that we remain alert to human rights and environmental concerns at all times, but we believe—unlike, it would seem, Opposition Members—that encouraging greater trade gives us an opportunity to offer a hand up to those most in need by creating the opportunities and employment they need to rise out of poverty. If we took on the suggestions of Opposition Members, we would do the opposite: we would close the door to those countries and the opportunity for their people to prosper and grow. These agreements are further evidence of global Britain’s determination to champion free trade—something that so clearly does not have many advocates on the Opposition Benches. We will champion free trade around the world that fosters growth, creates jobs, and raises living standards for all.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Zarah Sultana


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Neale Hanvey


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Zarah Sultana


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore

Deferred Division

Information Commissioner (Remuneration)

That, from 1 November 2021 —
(1) the Information Commissioner shall be paid a salary of £200,000 per annum and pension benefits in accordance with the standard award for the civil service pension scheme;
(2) all previous resolutions relating to the salary and pension of the Information Commissioner shall cease to have effect.

The House divided: Ayes 369, Noes 2.
Question accordingly agreed to.